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 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.


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