Hi Mark, On Jun 10, 2014, at 9:50 PM, Mark Heffernan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions. They have been addressed. Pekka (cc'd) on the > optimizer patch thread suggested changing the metadata string from > llvm.loopunroll.* to llvm.loop.unroll.*. I like the suggestion as it > partitions the namespace more logically. It makes sense then similarly to > change the existing llvm.vectorizer.* and llvm.interleave.* names to > llvm.loop.vectorizer.* and llvm.loop.interleave.*. Anybody have an opinion? I like those suggestions. Currently the vectorizer can only be enabled or disabled. I want to change this so that we can enable/disable vectorization and interleaving separately. The way metadata is handled in the vectorizer will need to be updated to accommodate this. > If I do make this change, then there will be a mismatch between the emitted > metadata names for the vectorizer and what the optimizer expects. What's the > protocol for handling this? Is submitting the optimizer change immediately > after this clang change good enough? I asked about this earlier. LLVM and Clang are considered to be version locked or perhaps we should say version synced. The protocol is to simultaneously submit/commit patches for LLVM and Clang. There may be some build failures if there is a delay, but that shouldn’t be a problem because they will be fixed in a subsequent build. I think you should hold off on changing the metadata until we can update both llvm and clang. I suggest you finish this patch without the metadata changes and we’ll work on that later. Thanks for working on this! Tyler _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
