[cfe-dev] Adding "simd" pragma to Clang

["C. Bergström"]

On 02/17/14 05:01 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 15 February 2014 18:39, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>> I think pragmas simd, omp and omp simd are worth implementing as
>> they're well defined in other contexts. Regarding our own new ones,
>> pragma Clang or pragma optimize could be easily implemented locally
>> until we find a better way of doing that.
> Folks,
>
> Just a follow-up. I've been discussing this issue on the GCC list, and
> it seems that the general feeling is the same: we should avoid old
> Intel or custom made pragmas and stick to Cilk/OMP 4 ones. For the
> internal ones (unroll, enable) we can use the old Intel ones
> (unroll/nounroll, vector/novector), so at least GCC anc ICC would be
> able to compile the same code.
What about trying to extend OMP pragma to cleanly fit your goals? This 
would give the OMP community something to evaluate and possibly adopt in 
future revision of the standard. Have you considered this at all? 
Further - the OMP community seems headed in that direction and has gets 
input from Intel and other companies/skateholders who really care/know 
vectorization

Cilk is far from any standard, not used in the real world(???) and 
fairly tied to Intel. (I'm not apposed to this, but something to think 
about)