This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Update ISL under gcc/infrastructure/ ? // Remove CLooG?
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser dot es>
- Cc: Roman Gareev <gareevroman at gmail dot com>, Tobias Burnus <tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de>, Albert Cohen <albert dot cohen at inria dot fr>, Sven Verdoolaege <skimo at kotnet dot org>, Mircea Namolaru <mircea dot namolaru at inria dot fr>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:05:56 +0100
- 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> <CABGF_gfmcazQLXPxZ4ET3P0VCNPYxYazJGWDY3GsGzFaj1ueGA at mail dot gmail dot com> <545B1D00 dot 6060605 at grosser dot es>
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias@grosser.es> wrote:
> On 06.11.2014 07:04, Roman Gareev wrote:
>>>
>>> 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).
>
>
> I do not have specific advices. You can use various open source benchmarks
> e.g. the LLVM test suite or, if you have access, you could run SPEC or
> something.
>
>>> @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?
>
>
> Wow, I must really have been sleeping (or just forgetting). The switch
> already happened. This is amazing.
>
> As the ISL code generator has been default since a while and we did not get
> many bug reports, the actual switch seems to have worked well. We could
> probably still need some testing, but in this case it is most likely time to
> drop the CLooG support entirely. Are you interested to provide the relevant
> patches?
>
> Also, as Tobias suggested we should raise the minimal supported isl level to
> 0.14 to be sure PR 62289 is fixed.
As I am testing with system isl/cloog that would be unfortunate as it means
I'd either drop testing graphite for 4.8 and 4.9 or for 5.0 ... AFAIK ISL
12.x and 13+ cannot co-exist in the system due to include file conflicts.
Richard.
> Cheers,
> Tobias
>