release_35 patches for unroll pragma

[Mark Heffernan]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron.ballman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Any reason that we need them in 3.5? Correctness?
>
> My only concern is that the feature is partially in 3.5, but a
> user-facing part of that feature was changed once the freeze happened.
> Eg)  #pragma clang loop unroll(enable) became  #pragma clang loop
> unroll(full)
>

That's my primary concern as well.  Having one release with one particular
syntax, then switch it to something else for the next release is not great.
 All-in-all I'd probably prefer not supporting the unroll pragma at all in
3.5 than have a (slightly) buggy one whose syntax will change.  However,
rolling back support completely would be a bigger change than these patches.

Mark


>
> Then again, I don't imagine this is going to get so much use in the
> real world that users can't do a simple grep to refactor their code
> for the change.


> ~Aaron
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140804/18e94eae/attachment.html>