[cfe-dev] moving the clang-omp merge along
Alexey Bataev
a.bataev at hotmail.com
Thu May 29 21:26:43 PDT 2014
Hi Chandler,
> 3) we need a good switch in Clang to use iomp (I know you or someone on the
> patch thread worked on this, did it land? if so, done!)
There is option -fopenmp=libiomp5 which makes clang to generate OpenMP
code for libiomp5. Currently the code is generated only for '#pragma omp
parallel' (just some initial codegen, you can check test in
clang/test/OpenMP/parallel_codegen.cpp). I'm working on CodeGen for
'#pragma omp threadprivate'. It will be ready soon.
Best regards,
Alexey Bataev
=============
Software Engineer
Intel Compiler Team
Intel Corp.
29.05.2014 18:39, cfe-dev-request at cs.uiuc.edu пишет:
> Send cfe-dev mailing list submissions to
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cfe-dev-request at cs.uiuc.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cfe-dev-owner at cs.uiuc.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cfe-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: moving the clang-omp merge along (Andrey Bokhanko)
> 2. Re: moving the clang-omp merge along (Chandler Carruth)
> 3. Re: moving the clang-omp merge along (Alp Toker)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:46:27 +0400
> From: Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> To: Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com>, Chandler Carruth
> <chandlerc at google.com>
> Cc: cfe-dev <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] moving the clang-omp merge along
> Message-ID:
> <CAJHoqafFFSLfy7cx6Uds2fBi6GhigSrhdM3xBW4aRPY1xHF=MQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> All,
>
> To clarify, what I meant is getting OMP runtime library (not clang-omp
> branch!) as a part of 3.5 release. I specifically referred to this thread:
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-May/thread.html#73025
> started by Jack. I thought he means libiomp when saying "openmp support" --
> apparently, I was mistaken. Hence the confusion.
>
> After so many talks with Chandler, I know very well that upstreaming full
> OpenMP support is a long way to go. :-)
>
> Also, the whole desire to put the library into 3.5 release is a responce to
> the criticism expressed by Chandler in this message:
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140217/099477.html
> .
>
> While we are on the topic, let me update on some other things happening in
> responce to other issues highlighted by Chandler:
>
> - This library is not being developed as an active part of the LLVM
> community, even if it is checked into SVN as part of the LLVM project and
> under its license. See r197914 where there is a code drop of many months
> worth of development with *no* change log, attribution, information, or
> other participation in any part of the community.
>
> This is changing, and many developers joining the whole OpenMP in clang
> support effort. I can say that Michael Wong and many of his colleagues from
> IBM are involved; Eric Stotzer and his colleagues from TI are involved;
> Barbara Chapman and her group from UofHouston is involved; Guansong Zhang
> from AMD is involved. Obviously, Hal Finkel, Chris Bergstrom, Steve Noonan
> and many others continue to be actively involved as well.
>
> Take a look at the recent activity in openmp-dev mailing list. More to come.
>
>
> - There has been essentially *zero* discussion with the rest of the clang
> or llvm community about this library. There are separate mailing lists
> which have nearly no traffic since the code drop.
>
> Take a look at this month's messages:
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-dev/2014-May/thread.html. In
> general, as more people get interested, more traffic became generated. It's
> a chicken and egg problem...
>
> - There has been no effort to make this library even work properly with
> Clang as a host compiler. See the copious notes that only Clang 3.3 is
> supported, and that not full featured.
>
> It is buildable with clang now. Moreover, regular buildbots, with both gcc
> and clang, are running:
>
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libiomp5-gcc-x86_64-linux-debian
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libiomp5-clang-x86_64-linux-debian
>
> - The build system is totally disjoint from LLVM's, in fact it is an
> entirely custom Perl build system that is unlike anything in use by the
> LLVM project.
>
> We started to work on improving build system. Stay tuned.
>
> - There are *zero tests* in the open source repository!!!! This is even
> called out in the original submission and on the primary website. We simply
> *cannot* ship and link against a runtime library which has no tests!
>
> University of Houston contributed OpenUH test suite:
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-commits/2014-May/000019.html.
> Sunita Chandrasekaran from the University works on integrating this suite
> into LLVM test system.
>
> BTW, any advice with how to approach this would be *much* appreciated!
>
> - No part of this library has gone through an LLVM release process either,
> not even as a "new" or "beta" project.
>
> Aha! So, you support inclusion of openmp (library, not compiler) in 3.5 as
> well? :-)
>
> Andrey
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Jack Howarth <
> howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrey Bokhanko expressed interest in getting the clang-omp
>> merge done in time for the 3.5 release but wants guidance on the process. I
>> suggested starting with the creation a new clang-omp branch upstream
>> rebased on clang trunk for generation of merge patch. Unfortunately
>> merging the current changes from the clang-omp (based on clang 3.4) to a
>> clang-omp (based on clang trunk) looks very difficult as selective patches
>> have been committed into clang trunk from clang-omp and don't appear to
>> have been kept synchronized with the current changes from upstream. Does
>> anyone know if these new files from previous commits out of clang-omp
>> contain any local changes which haven't been back ported to clang-omp? It
>> would seem that postponing this merge will just make the process harder as
>> time goes on if selective merges from clang-omp into clang trunk continue
>> in the interim. Hopefully the folks who did the original selective commits
>> would help detangle this mess.
>> Jack
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140529/f0d1442a/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 07:03:44 -0700
> From: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
> To: Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> Cc: cfe-dev <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] moving the clang-omp merge along
> Message-ID:
> <CAGCO0KiQfd-YiW_Yks-Z9TOdbhPDJ32eKWekHFZO7JDcBkDE3Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Andrey Bokhanko
> <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> While we are on the topic, let me update on some other things happening in
>> responce to other issues highlighted by Chandler:
>>
> I just wanted to say, I am very happy to see progress starting here. =] All
> of my comments below are meant to help the effort move faster and deal
> better with the LLVM project.
>
>
>> - This library is not being developed as an active part of the LLVM
>> community, even if it is checked into SVN as part of the LLVM project and
>> under its license. See r197914 where there is a code drop of many months
>> worth of development with *no* change log, attribution, information, or
>> other participation in any part of the community.
>>
>> This is changing, and many developers joining the whole OpenMP in clang
>> support effort. I can say that Michael Wong and many of his colleagues from
>> IBM are involved; Eric Stotzer and his colleagues from TI are involved;
>> Barbara Chapman and her group from UofHouston is involved; Guansong Zhang
>> from AMD is involved. Obviously, Hal Finkel, Chris Bergstrom, Steve Noonan
>> and many others continue to be actively involved as well.
>>
>> Take a look at the recent activity in openmp-dev mailing list. More to
>> come.
>>
> Pretty happy about this, and looking forward to more. Some things that
> would be helpful (IMO, others may disagree) to start looking into how/when
> to adopt or integrate:
>
> - Start more closely following the LLVM developer policy around code review
> and small, incremental patches and development.
> - Maybe use code review tools like Phabricator? Dunno what would be
> needed to make this work well, probably some stuff...
> - Check that the codebase compiles with the same host toolchain baseline as
> the rest of the LLVM project[1]
> - Maybe work out a plan toward generally conforming with the coding
> standards[2] where applicable?
>
>
>> It is buildable with clang now. Moreover, regular buildbots, with both gcc
>> and clang, are running:
>>
>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libiomp5-gcc-x86_64-linux-debian
>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libiomp5-clang-x86_64-linux-debian
>>
> Just want to say, this in particular is fantastic.
>
>
>> - The build system is totally disjoint from LLVM's, in fact it is an
>> entirely custom Perl build system that is unlike anything in use by the
>> LLVM project.
>>
>> We started to work on improving build system. Stay tuned.
>>
> Very cool. I would look closely at the compiler-rt and libc++ CMake builds.
> Hopefully useful.
>
>
>> - There are *zero tests* in the open source repository!!!! This is even
>> called out in the original submission and on the primary website. We simply
>> *cannot* ship and link against a runtime library which has no tests!
>>
>> University of Houston contributed OpenUH test suite:
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-commits/2014-May/000019.html.
>> Sunita Chandrasekaran from the University works on integrating this suite
>> into LLVM test system.
>>
>> BTW, any advice with how to approach this would be *much* appreciated!
>>
> I think the right way to go is something along the lines of the ASan (in
> compiler-rt) lit tests, but maybe others have a better idea. I agree that
> testing here is hard.
>
>
>> - No part of this library has gone through an LLVM release process either,
>> not even as a "new" or "beta" project.
>>
>> Aha! So, you support inclusion of openmp (library, not compiler) in 3.5 as
>> well? :-)
>>
> Hehe, I see what you did there.
>
> I do genuinely support it going through the release process, but I think
> that there are two things that need to be pretty solid first:
>
> 1) the build system work probably needs to be pretty solid. i'd be happy
> with support on par with compiler-rt or libc++ in CMake...
> 2) the test suite needs to be at least reasonably well integrated so
> release testers actually hit it and exercise the code
> 3) we need a good switch in Clang to use iomp (I know you or someone on the
> patch thread worked on this, did it land? if so, done!)
>
> Maybe others have other thoughts, but I think those three are my key ones.
>
> Anyways, thanks for the clarification and all the hard work on this stuff.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140529/2c31f1bf/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:39:32 +0300
> From: Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com>
> To: Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>, Jack Howarth
> <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com>, Chandler Carruth
> <chandlerc at google.com>
> Cc: cfe-dev <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] moving the clang-omp merge along
> Message-ID: <538746A4.3020305 at nuanti.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Thanks for the summary Andrey.
>
> The underlying problem For the OpenMP *runtime* is really lack of
> visibility and sidelining on the openmp-dev list.
>
> It's absolutely critical to close down the low-volume openmp-dev list
> and fold the subscribers into one of the more active mailing lists,
> either llvm-dev or cfe-dev.
>
> Until that's done the patches won't get review from the mainstream LLVM
> developer community, build system experts won't join in etc.
>
> Alp.
>
>
>
> On 29/05/2014 16:46, Andrey Bokhanko wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> To clarify, what I meant is getting OMP runtime library (not clang-omp
>> branch!) as a part of 3.5 release. I specifically referred to this
>> thread:
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-May/thread.html#73025
>> started by Jack. I thought he means libiomp when saying "openmp
>> support" -- apparently, I was mistaken. Hence the confusion.
>>
>> After so many talks with Chandler, I know very well that upstreaming
>> full OpenMP support is a long way to go. :-)
>>
>> Also, the whole desire to put the library into 3.5 release is a
>> responce to the criticism expressed by Chandler in this message:
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140217/099477.html.
>>
>> While we are on the topic, let me update on some other things
>> happening in responce to other issues highlighted by Chandler:
>>
>> - This library is not being developed as an active part of the LLVM
>> community, even if it is checked into SVN as part of the LLVM project and
>> under its license. See r197914 where there is a code drop of many months
>> worth of development with *no* change log, attribution, information, or
>> other participation in any part of the community.
>>
>> This is changing, and many developers joining the whole OpenMP in
>> clang support effort. I can say that Michael Wong and many of his
>> colleagues from IBM are involved; Eric Stotzer and his colleagues from
>> TI are involved; Barbara Chapman and her group from UofHouston is
>> involved; Guansong Zhang from AMD is involved. Obviously, Hal Finkel,
>> Chris Bergstrom, Steve Noonan and many others continue to be actively
>> involved as well.
>>
>> Take a look at the recent activity in openmp-dev mailing list. More to
>> come.
>>
>>
>> - There has been essentially *zero* discussion with the rest of the clang
>> or llvm community about this library. There are separate mailing lists
>> which have nearly no traffic since the code drop.
>>
>> Take a look at this month's messages:
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-dev/2014-May/thread.html. In
>> general, as more people get interested, more traffic became generated.
>> It's a chicken and egg problem...
>>
>> - There has been no effort to make this library even work properly with
>> Clang as a host compiler. See the copious notes that only Clang 3.3 is
>> supported, and that not full featured.
>>
>> It is buildable with clang now. Moreover, regular buildbots, with both
>> gcc and clang, are running:
>>
>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libiomp5-gcc-x86_64-linux-debian
>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libiomp5-clang-x86_64-linux-debian
>>
>> - The build system is totally disjoint from LLVM's, in fact it is an
>> entirely custom Perl build system that is unlike anything in use by the
>> LLVM project.
>>
>> We started to work on improving build system. Stay tuned.
>>
>> - There are *zero tests* in the open source repository!!!! This is even
>> called out in the original submission and on the primary website. We
>> simply
>> *cannot* ship and link against a runtime library which has no tests!
>>
>> University of Houston contributed OpenUH test suite:
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-commits/2014-May/000019.html. Sunita
>> Chandrasekaran from the University works on integrating this suite
>> into LLVM test system.
>>
>> BTW, any advice with how to approach this would be *much* appreciated!
>>
>> - No part of this library has gone through an LLVM release process either,
>> not even as a "new" or "beta" project.
>>
>> Aha! So, you support inclusion of openmp (library, not compiler) in
>> 3.5 as well? :-)
>>
>> Andrey
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Jack Howarth
>> <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com
>> <mailto:howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Andrey Bokhanko expressed interest in getting the clang-omp
>> merge done in time for the 3.5 release but wants guidance on the
>> process. I suggested starting with the creation a new clang-omp
>> branch upstream rebased on clang trunk for generation of merge
>> patch. Unfortunately merging the current changes from the
>> clang-omp (based on clang 3.4) to a clang-omp (based on clang
>> trunk) looks very difficult as selective patches have been
>> committed into clang trunk from clang-omp and don't appear to have
>> been kept synchronized with the current changes from upstream.
>> Does anyone know if these new files from previous commits out of
>> clang-omp contain any local changes which haven't been back ported
>> to clang-omp? It would seem that postponing this merge will just
>> make the process harder as time goes on if selective merges from
>> clang-omp into clang trunk continue in the interim. Hopefully
>> the folks who did the original selective commits would help
>> detangle this mess.
>> Jack
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto: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
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list