[Polly][Refactor] IslAst [6/7]

[Johannes Doerfert]

I figured that [Refactor] would indicate that I do not change the behavior.
However, I can make it more explicit.

To be explicit here:
  I do not intend to change the behavior (and I'm pretty sure I did not).
  What I did is:
     - I removed unnecessary computation.
     - Made the variable names consistent.
     - Got rid of the "mentioning" of OpenMP.
     - Use a different kind of flags to express what we expressed before. 

--

Johannes Doerfert
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by
The Linux Foundation


-----Original Message-----
From: Tobias Grosser [mailto:tobias at grosser.es] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 5:14 AM
To: Johannes Doerfert; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [Polly][Refactor] IslAst [6/7]

On 24/07/2014 18:32, Johannes Doerfert wrote:
>  From 74cf5ef91907162388f915090824d726beb30fdd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 
> 2001
> From: Johannes Doerfert<jdoerfert at codeaurora.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:35:55 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] [Refactor] Use isParallel and isInnermost
>
>    + Change isInnermostParallel and isOuterParallel to combinations of
isParallel
>      and isInnermost.
>    + Perform the parallelism check on the innermost loop only once.
>    + Inline the markOpenmpParallel function.
>    + Rename all IslAstUserPayload * into Payload (was Info, NodeInfo and
Payload
>      before).

Hi Johannes,

It is not clear to me from the commit message if this patch will change
how/if we annotate parallel loops or if it is just a cleanup that separates
innermost and parallel.

If you do not intend to modify behavior, it is common habit to point this
out in the commit message. If you intend to modify behavior (which is
surprising in a simple refactoring commit), could you give a motivation why
you do so and add a test case that shows this change.

Thanks,
Tobias