[cfe-dev] clang 3.5 branching and clang-openmp merge

[Anton Korobeynikov]

Jack,

The standard release process is that release is time-based, not
feature based (with known timeframe in advance). So, OpenMP patches
have good chances to go in 3.6 (if they will be committed there,
surely) and there is nothing bad here.

The rush of getting code into the release branch IMO seriously affects
the quality of the code. So, it's much better to have "OMP bits are
not yet included fully" instead of "we merged all the stuff in a
hurry, stuff should work, but it was neither tested, nor reviewed". In
case of OpenMP there are many important questions which need to be
answered, e.g. the runtime library.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Jack Howarth
<howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nico,
>      So basically branching for 3.5 completely terminates the process of
> merging the clang-omp changes. It is unfortunate that llvm seems to have a
> rather disorganized process for merging trees like clang-omp. It would have
> been nice to see some level of coordination to get that committed cleanly
> rather than a piecemeal fashion over multiple llvm releases.
>          Jack
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Jack Howarth
>> <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Nico,
>>>     A simple review of cfe-commits mailing list archive for the past
>>> couple of months shows that Alexey Bataev has been regularly committing
>>> sections of the clang-omp merge so it really isn't true to say that nothing
>>> has landed in trunk yet.
>>
>>
>> Oh sure, anything that was committed by yesterday is part of 3.5. I think
>> Bill understood your question as "We landed this bit of code very recently
>> that we'd like to merge", but from what I understand it's more "there's a
>> largeish chunk of code in some upstream repo". I don't think Bill meant to
>> say that all that unmerged code should just be merged to 3.5 :-)
>>
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that the clang-omp changes were never submitted as a
>>> complete series of patches on the mailing list so only the clang-omp
>>> developers have a good sense of what remains to be committed from their
>>> tree.
>>>          Jack
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please go ahead and merge those changes into the 3.5 release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They aren't landed yet on trunk, as far as I understand.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There’s still time before we close the branches to non-bug fix changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> -bw
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Jack Howarth
>>>>> <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >      Is the merge of the clang-omp changes being abandoned for the
>>>>> > 3.5 release or will these additional changes to trunk also be allowed into
>>>>> > the clang 3.5 branch? If official clang 3.5 release is left with only a
>>>>> > partial merge of these changes, it would seem to require upstream to pause
>>>>> > and rebase their clang-omp tree on clang 3.5 instead of the current clang
>>>>> > 3.4 (to allow for a stable release of clang-omp to be available based on
>>>>> > clang 3.5).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is probably correct, yes.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >              Jack
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>



-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University