[PATCH] D69088: [Lex] #pragma clang transform

[Tyler Nowicki via cfe-commits]

Sorry if this is answered in the patches but what happens if a loop has
both #pragma clang loop and transform defined before it? I guess it
probably shouldn't work.

Perhaps instead you could create a new option to indicate that the order
should be respected.

#pragma clang loop respect_order  <- optionally with (true) or (false)

That approach would avoid the inevitable conflicts of having both loop and
transform pragmas on the same loop.


On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:27 PM Michael Kruse via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> Meinersbur added a comment.
>
> In D69088#1713623 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088#1713623>, @hsaito
> wrote:
>
> > @Meinersbur, if I remember correctly, there was an RFC discussion on
> this topic, right? If yes, would you post the pointer to that? I need a
> refresher on what has been discussed/settled in the past.
>
>
> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-May/058141.html
>
>
> Repository:
>   rC Clang
>
> CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
>   https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088/new/
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20191017/87bca394/attachment.html>