This is the mail archive of the 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: RFC: Update ISL under gcc/infrastructure/ ? // Remove CLooG?

On 11/6/14, Tobias Grosser <> wrote:
> On 06.11.2014 11:15, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On 11/6/14, Tobias Grosser <> wrote:
>>> On 06.11.2014 10:05, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Tobias Grosser <>
>>>> 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.
>>> Sven,
>>> is there any chance we can add the deprecated isl_int includes back into
>>> isl 0.14.1. This would unblock the testing and we could remove them as
>>> soon as gcc 4.8/4.9 has been phased out.
>>> This would also fix my polly code coverage tests which do not work since
>>> isl_int has been moved into different header files, as ubuntu does not
>>> want to update isl as long as such an update breaks gcc.
>> Ah, so it's still there?
> Yes, we just need to include some additional header files.
> Besides isl/aff.h we now also would need isl/deprecated/aff.h
>>  Maybe we can simply add some configury to detect
>> its location and fix build with a patch for 4.8 and 4.9?
>  > Is there maybe even
>> a preprocessor macro one can check that newer ISL provide that can tell
>> us where to look for isl_int?
> We could detect the need to include these files based on isl's version
> macros.
> So you suggest that adding conditional includes would allow us to move
> forward and would be part of some of the next gcc point releases. This
> would be perfect.

Yes.  Please make sure - if you produce a patch - that it works with both
inline copy of ISL and system installed one.


> Tobias

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