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

[Tobias Grosser]

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 ‘switch’? If I’m 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.

Cheers,
Tobias