Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> writes: Thanks for doing that. I missed this pragma several times.
> I didn’t engineer ivdeps and unroll together. Does it sound > reasonable to allow both to be used at the same time on the same loop? > If so, I can add the two other cases, presently I just handle one of > them then the loop. Yes it would be useful, in theory this could allow more vectorizing (although I'm not sure the BB vectorizer would handle it right now) > > I support using -1 for a directive that says, don’t peel, don’t > unroll. As a UI issue, I think this is wrong. I want to to be either > 0 or 1, those two seem better. But, not sure which is the right one > of the two. Which number says, don’t unroll, I’m smarter than you > think. Define a new pragma for these cases? > > If we have a loop that we know can only be unroll 7 times, and the > user says unroll 8, should we unroll it 7 times? Presently I do. The > other option, is to ignore the directive when we know it is > non-sensicle. I think it's fine to only unroll 7 times, better than not unrolling. Patch looks ok to me from a quick read except for the missing documentation (but I cannot approve anything) -Andi
