[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [Openmp-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 22:21:10 PDT 2016

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> (Mostly trying to re-focus the thread somewhat)
> Given support from Mehdi, Renato, and especially Hal who has contributed
> specifically in this area to LLVM as a whole, and no strong objections from
> significant contributors (I feel like the primary concerns Intel raised have
> been addressed, and we can keep working to make sure the libomptarget stuff
> is integrated effectively), I think we should move forward.
> I understand that you still disagree with Hal and Mehdi here Chris, but I
> don't think debating more in this thread is going to resolve anything. While
> I'm still very interested in your feedback here and on the actual
> implementation of SE, I think we should go with the direction suggested by
> more significant contributors to the project. I'm inclined to trust the
> judgement of Hal, Renato, and Mehdi in the absence of objections from other
> significant contributors.
> So Jason, I would suggest starting a fresh thread with Tanya to get the
> mechanical stuff in place for the new project. We can discuss whether to
> have a separate mailing list, etc. there. And then can start posting patches
> based on the charter and other stuff you've already worked up.
> (Also happy for folks who've been keeping silent to chime in with more
> opinions! Just assuming that most don't have strong feelings either way at
> this point.)

yay for steamroller approach without actually addressing any of my
valid concerns. I'd expect nothing less from you Chandler, nice job..

It's not like they will be contributing code to this area and or have
contributed much to the areas of offloading. (Sorry Hal, but I may be
mistaken in your case.. I'd need to check commit logs)

The reasons Hal and others "support" your proposal is based on
"interest" or speculation at best. They haven't committed to
contribute code and their expertise in the areas of offloading is
probably narrow band. (Again sorry Hal, I know you work inside the OMP

I expect if we had to take a vote it would be myself (who has
contributed to OMP btw, most of the ARM port, cmake stuff and lots of
code reviews) and Intel - (who has significantly contributed to OMP).
Just because I don't submit patches to the pass manager doesn't mean I
have zero contribution. I'm annoyed you don't even have your facts

My vote isn't -1, but it is lets revisit this when the project is more
mature. Are you totally blind to the fact that we DO NOT NEED ANOTHER
PROGRAMMING MODEL. There should be super strong and compelling reasons
to do that, which you have not demonstrated.

New programming model == super big hammer. It's like saying everything
else is so broken beyond repair we need to invent something wholly

Intel can you please weigh in


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list