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: RFC: Update ISL under gcc/infrastructure/ ? // Remove CLooG?


On 06.11.2014 11:15, Richard Biener wrote:
On 11/6/14, Tobias Grosser <tobias@grosser.es> wrote:
On 06.11.2014 10:05, Richard Biener wrote:
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.

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.

Tobias






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