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

[Hideki Saito via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

hsaito added a comment.

In D69088#1714575 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088#1714575>, @Meinersbur wrote:

> In D69088#1714020 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088#1714020>, @hsaito wrote:
>
> > Personally, I like the intent. I don't foresee a clear (enough) path to get there. This leads to hesitation of adding a new non-experimental pragma and present it to programmers. If you call it experimental, it's easier for me to swallow.
>
>
> Is there anything more to do than mentioning as being it experimental in the (no-patch-available-yet) docs?


If there is a precedence, just follow that. Else, how to spell an experimental clang pragma would be a good discussion topic by itself. If I need to provide a discussion starter, I'd say how about transform_experimental instead of transform. All I ask is somehow make it easier for programmers to know it is experimental so that they won't use it w/o first reading about the current state of support. I don't have a strong opinion about how to do so.

If others with stakes in loop optimizations foresee a clear enough path to get there, I won't insist this being experimental, but I would like to understand the path.

Thanks,
Hideki


Repository:
  rC Clang

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D69088