skatrak wrote: > This looks good on its own. How many of these composite constructs are there > in total? I'm wondering if there are enough that we should consider a more > elaborate solution to avoid duplicating code (e.g. what if clause processing > changes at some point).
Thank you for the quick reviews! There are just a few composite constructs: `do simd`, `distribute simd`, `taskloop simd`, `distribute parallel do` and `distribute parallel do simd`. But I see what you mean, composite lowering looks quite similar on all cases. I think that when this is a bit more mature we should be able to move to a per-leaf composite lowering and avoid having all this similar code. But I think doing it before having composite privatization completely figured out may result in some bad abstractions we'll have to change later anyways. So maybe that improvement could come later, but let me know if you think I should address it as part of this PR. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106211 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
