This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi Tom. Hi folks.We've asked Balaji to rewrite the <#pragma simd> handling for cilkplus as we currently do for OMP, etc, in init_pragma().
The cilkplus branch currently has something like: cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "", PRAGMA_SIMD_EMPTY, true, false); cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "assert", PRAGMA_SIMD_ASSERT, true, false); cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "noassert", PRAGMA_SIMD_NOASSERT, true, false); cpp_register_deferred_pragma (parse_in, "simd", "vectorlength", PRAGMA_SIMD_VECTORLENGTH, true, false);Notice that #pragma simd can be both a pragma name space, and also a lone pragma with no arguments:
#pragma simd assert -or- #pragma simdIt seems like the code in libcpp's do_pragma(), specifically disallows this. If we're looking at a possible pragma name space, the next expected token is a CPP_NAME.
Is there a way to handle this scenario with the current infrastructure? If not, is something like the attached (untested) patch reasonable?
Aldy
Attachment:
curr
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |