This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Update ISL under gcc/infrastructure/ ? // Remove CLooG?
- From: Roman Gareev <gareevroman at gmail dot com>
- To: Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser dot es>
- Cc: tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Albert Cohen <albert dot cohen at inria dot fr>, skimo at kotnet dot org, Mircea Namolaru <mircea dot namolaru at inria dot fr>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:04:51 +0600
- Subject: Re: RFC: Update ISL under gcc/infrastructure/ ? // Remove CLooG?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141104151755 dot GA13200 at physik dot fu-berlin dot de> <545AB53E dot 5080808 at grosser dot es>
> CLooG is not necessarily needed. You can run graphite just with ISL. The
> main reason that ISL code generation is not enabled by default is that we
> did not yet get extensive testing and it was unclear who will have the time
> to fix possible bugs.
Could you please advise me which test suites should be used to make
performance comparison between CLooG and ISL generator? (I would like
to do this, even though the old generator is removed).
> @Mircae, Roman: Would you have time to help with bug-fixing if we do the
> switch now? (I am happy to review patches and give advice, but can not do
> the full move myself)
I could find time for this. What do you mean by âswitchâ? If Iâm not
mistaken, ISL generator is already used by default. Should we remove
support of CLooG generator and all files related to it?
Cheers, Roman Gareev.