This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Update ISL under gcc/infrastructure/ ? // Remove CLooG?
- From: Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser dot es>
- To: Roman Gareev <gareevroman at gmail dot com>
- 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, 06 Nov 2014 08:02:24 +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>
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.