This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Announce - Thread safety annotations no longer supported in GCC


I can give you detailed technical reasons why GIMPLE was not working
for us if you like, but I'm not sure it would be all that
constructive.  We have already made the decision to switch to clang
for annotalysis users within google, for reasons that are only partly
technical.  The only reason to support the gcc version would be if
there was sufficient interest in annotalysis outside of google to
warrant the effort of moving it to trunk.  Given that the annotalysis
branch stopped tracking trunk almost a year ago, and has been disabled
in even in google/main for the past 6 months, I would be surprised to
find any such users.  Since the estimated number of users is currently
zero, there seems little point in maintaining the software.

Moreover, although I appreciate your offer to try and expand GIMPLE, I
don't think it makes a lot of sense.  GIMPLE works just fine for its
intended use case, which is an intermediate language for compiler
optimization.  Changing GIMPLE would be a major effort, and it would
only be warranted if there were enough users to make it worthwhile.

  -DeLesley

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Delesley Hutchins <delesley@google.com> wrote:
>> The gcc version has been difficult to support and maintain, due mainly
>> to the fact that the GIMPLE intermediate language was never designed
>> for static analysis. ?The abstract syntax tree provided by Clang is an
>> easier data structure to work with for front-end analyses of this
>> kind. ?Moreover, the gcc implementation of annotalysis has some issues
>> that make an eventual merge into trunk somewhat unlikely, and
>> annotalysis is of little use to people outside of google as long as it
>> stays in google/main. ?The clang implementation has been in trunk from
>> the beginning.
>>
>> Hope that explains it a bit better,
>
> No, that it does not help at all. ?This seems like a high level issue
> of the problem rather than describing the reasons why GIMPLE will
> never work correctly for your usage. ?Maybe we can expand it for your
> usage but we need to better understand what it is lacking.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>
>
>>
>> ?-DeLesley
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have decided to terminate the thread safety annotation project in
>>>> GCC.
>>>>
>>>> The current implementation is in the branch google/main for those
>>>> interested in using it. ?We will not be pursuing a merge into trunk.
>>>> Instead, we have started implementing the same functionality in Clang.
>>>
>>> What went into making this decision? ?I know lot of folks will almost
>>> never go over to using clang since it means supporting one extra
>>> front-end. ?I am thinking of the embedded folks here where they cannot
>>> afford supporting something as new as clang for their customers.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew Pinski
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've updated the wiki page and moved the branch out of the active
>>>> development branches in svn.html.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diego.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> DeLesley Hutchins | Software Engineer | delesley@google.com | 505-206-0315



-- 
DeLesley Hutchins | Software Engineer | delesley@google.com | 505-206-0315


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]