[llvm-dev] [Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM subproject for parallelism runtime and support libraries

C Bergström via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 1 14:25:30 PDT 2016

ignorable tangent -

compiler-rt conforms to a defacto standard since it models after
libgcc interface, no? compiler-rt is also dead boring and stable (good
things) (well.. asan keeps them busy, but that doesn't impact the

OMP runtime - huh? There's obviously an implementation wrapper around
pthreads for the compiler to chew on, but the exported/user facing
portions certainly do or should conform to the OMP standard.
Everything that is user facing is well defined and the whole process
from TR to finalization is established...

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> ________________________________
> From: "andreybokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>, "llvm-dev"
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev"
> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>,
> "Carlo Bertolli" <cbertol at us.ibm.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 10:43:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM
> subproject for parallelism runtime and support libraries
> Hal,
> 1 июня 2016 г., в 14:22, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> написал(а):
> I agree that the 'openmp' runtime project logically fits within the purview
> of a 'parallel' project. We may even want to move it there eventually. We
> might also want it to remain separate while the project uses its own coding
> conventions (which are different from LLVM's coding conventions for
> historical reasons). We're not yet had that conversation, but it is a good
> one to have.
> Any reasons why we want to disrupt an established project and its users?
> Just because we prefer "parallel" as a name for a new project and want to
> validate this choice by moving an actual parallel runtime there?
> I have no burning desire to shuffle around repositories for fun ;) -- I was
> simply validating the point that the 'openmp' project could logically fit
> within a larger project providing parallel runtimes. We should do this only
> if there is a compelling reason. I see encouraging interaction between
> developers working on similar things as a compelling reason. It is not clear
> that applies in this case.
> Also, Chris' arguments on SE's lack of  users / standard body make a lot of
> sense to me. I remember that CilkPlus was rejected for the same reasons. Why
> SE (PPM, not the library) is different?
> We have some projects that conform to standard interfaces and some that
> don't. There's no standard for much of compiler-rt's interface, for example.
> The OpenMP runtime library itself does not conform to any particular
> standardized interface (excepting OMP-T). We don't have CilkPlus in-tree in
> Clang, and we don't have UPC either. We don't have a lot of potential
> extensions in Clang, although we do certainly have some, and this is not the
> right thread on which to discuss that issue, for SE or anything else.
> Thanks again,
> Hal
> Yours,
> Andrey
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list