On Apr 1, 2005 9:36 PM, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Diego Novillo wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 11:24:06AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > >>Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> > >> > >>>So I guess question 1 is, Mark, do you feel negatively enough about this > >>>feature to block its acceptance in mainline? > >> > >>I'm not sure that I *could* block it, but, no, I don't feel that negatively. > >> > > > > I don't mind either way. But I do have a question, what's the > > granularity of this #pragma? Function-level, I hope? > > That's what I assumed. Anything finer than that is insane. :-)
Well, if we're inventing something that can annotate functions we may as well invent it in a way that it can be extended to handle statement annotations. Just like for for (;;) #pragma inline foo(); I guess all this (annotating) would fit nicely with the gOMP project, so maybe coordinating the #pragma parsing and storing of the annotation with them would be a good idea. Richard.