[PATCH] D47267: [UnrollAndJam] Add unroll_and_jam pragma handling

[Michael Kruse via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Meinersbur added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47267#1123013, @dmgreen wrote:

> I see your point about the mix of underscores. "nounroll_and_jam" also comes from the Intel docs, and theres already "nounroll" vs "unroll". The "no" becomes a qualifier on "unroll_and_jam". "no_unroll_and_jam" feels less consistent to me.


`nounroll_and_jam` looks like it should be parsed as "(no unroll) and jam" (do not unroll, but fuse) instead of "no (unroll-and-jam)" because `nounroll` is one word and as you mentioned, already used as a keyword somewhere else. Other variants use the underscore to append an option, e.g. `vectorize_width`.

> But if you have a strong opinion, I'm happy enough to change it.

I don't. Feel free to chose the name you think fits best. We might support multiple spellings if necessary.

If we want to add more transformations, it would be nice to have an explicit naming scheme. E.g. for "register tiling", "stream_unroll" (supported by xlc), "index set splitting", "statement reordering", "strip mine", "overlap tiling", "diamond tiling", "thread-parallelization", "task-parallelization", "loop unswitching", etc.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D47267