kiranchandramohan wrote:
It is slightly unfortunate to rediscover the loops so early in the flow when we
had it in source. Have you considered changing the representation of
do_concurrent in the IR for multi-range do concurrent loops? Representation
could in HLFIR capture all the loops, so there is no need to re-discover the
loops. It could be modelled on the old workshare loop `hlfir.do_concurrent
(i,j) : (start_i,start_j) (end_i,end_j) (step_i,step_j)` or the current
representation
```
hlfir.do_concurrent {
fir.do
fir.do
}
```
Alternatively would adding attributes to denote a multi-range loop help this?
```
fir.do_loop unordered multi-range
fir.do_loop unordered multi-range
```
Might be worth a discussion with @clementval and @jeanPerier to see whether
there is appetite for it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127595
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
