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

[Hal Finkel via cfe-dev]

----- Original Message -----

> 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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160601/207fc15e/attachment.html>