Re: [PATCH, RFC] fortran [was Re: #pragma GCC unroll support]

2015-11-02 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On May 28, 2015 2:03:08 PM GMT+02:00, Mike Stump wrote: >On May 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer > wrote: >> >> Does anybody have a better suggestion? >> >> directive not at the start of a loop at %C >> directive not followed by a loop

Re: [PATCH, RFC] fortran [was Re: #pragma GCC unroll support]

2015-05-28 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On 3 February 2015 at 01:07, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote: On Feb 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot@gmail.com wrote: Untested draft patch I looked it over, seems to slot in nicely. + gfc_error (%GCC unroll% directive does not commence a loop at

Re: [PATCH, RFC] fortran [was Re: #pragma GCC unroll support]

2015-05-28 Thread Mike Stump
On May 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot@gmail.com wrote: Does anybody have a better suggestion? directive not at the start of a loop at %C directive not followed by a loop at %C I prefer either of these. I have a slight preference for the first. Mike, did you

Re: [PATCH, RFC] fortran [was Re: #pragma GCC unroll support]

2015-02-02 Thread Mike Stump
On Feb 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot@gmail.com wrote: Untested draft patch I looked it over, seems to slot in nicely. + gfc_error (%GCC unroll% directive does not commence a loop at %C”); So, don’t like commence here.

[PATCH, RFC] fortran [was Re: #pragma GCC unroll support]

2015-02-02 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
Hi, Some compilers IIRC use !DIR$ unroll, if memory serves me right then the DEC compiler had !DEC$ unroll. We could support one or the other three-letter keyword or maybe not. I think a combination of unroll and ivdep directives is allowed (at least in some compilers); TODO. Not sure what