[LLVMdev] Qualitative comparisons between Open64 and llvm

[Liu]

Hi, Arvind &  Kun

"Generates crap code, has tons of bugs, the community is disorganized
selfish and driven by corporate bullshit"
is Open64.



2010/7/2 Ling Kun <erlv5241 at gmail.com>

> Hi, Arvind Sudarsanam:
>   I  know some of Open64. Above all, Open64 is designed for a high
> performance compiler. It is now supported by AMD, HP, ICT Chinese
> Academy of Science, etc. and has been ported to X86, Itanium, Loongson
> CPU etc.
>
> And to your questions
> 1, Open64 already have some main  optimization phases, Inline for
> aggressive inline opt. LNO for loop opt, WOPT for machine independent
> opt( transform WHIRL to SSA ,  do opt, and transform back to WHIRL),
> CG for basic block control flow and target specific opt. You can add
> your  passes depend on what your opt is.
>
> 2, Open64 has dump_* function and traces to get plenty of  debugging
> information. It is very helpful for developers,  According to my
> experience, WOPT phases is a little  difficult to debug, because of
> SSA , alias computation,etc, however, nothing is difficult if you
> understand it :)
>
> 3,What do you mean by quality? According to SPEC CPU official websit,
> Open64(or pathscale) get better performance on some X86 and Itanium
> processors, you can find more at http://www.pathscale.com/node/18 .
>
> 4,Open64 has a maillist, you can get more help there.
> http://www.open64.net/mailing-list.html
>
> 5. Compare to LLVM and GCC, Open64's document is  less. But code is
> the best way, and the comment gives many information.  : )
>
> 6, while for retarget, Open64 use a targ_info directory for machine
> description, such as instruction, register, and scheduling
> information. While for multi core processors, Open64 already have
> openmp support.
>
>
> While for LLVM, I think other guys in this maillist can give you much
> more information : )
>
>
> yours,
>  Ling kun
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Arvind Sudarsanam
> <A.Sudarsanam at cputech.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have been working towards developing compiler optimization tools
> > targeting multi core processors while using LLVM IR as the starting
> > point and building on top of the analysis and optimization passes
> > available in the llvm source.
> >
> > Recently, I looked into Open64 and its intermediate representation
> > WHIRL. Documentation for developers to use Open64 seems to be inadequate
> > (when compared to LLVM documentation). I am planning to download the
> > source and look into it.
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone has worked with both LLVM and Open64 and has
> > some qualitative comparisons between the two. Maybe, in terms of (a)
> > Ease of developing new passes (2) Ease of debugging (3) Quality of
> > results (4) Support for developers (5) Documentation (6) Ability to
> > retarget towards multi core processors.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > Sincerely
> > Arvind
> >
> > CPU Technology
> > Software Engineer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.lingcc.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100707/eb8da10a/attachment.html>