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

[Dave Green via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

dmgreen added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47267#1123318, @hfinkel wrote:

> I have a preference for using the underscores as our primary spelling. I think that it's easier to read.


I agree with it being easier to read.

> I prefer we have a different syntax that we can use consistently within the 'clang loop' pragmas. How about 'unroll_and_jam disable' or similar?

The code I had for #pragma clang loop (now in https://reviews.llvm.org/D47320, although I may not have split all the relevant parts into there) was doing the same thing as the unroll code. So worked the same way, I think looking like "#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(disable)" vs enable. It sounds sensible to me to have these look the same way as unroll clang loop pragmas, for both the old syntax and the new from the RFC.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D47267