[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 Apr 27 09:32:12 PDT 2016

I respect Hal's more tactful approach and response..

Let me play devils advocate for a minute

1) Yet another programming model - Is the advantage spelled out
somewhere? (I know there are reasons, but I'd like to see a FAQ or
this clearly documented. Examples pretty please.. More for long term
than my own selfish benefit)
2) Is this an "open standard" - If I wanted to propose a major change
to SE - how would I or someone else go about it? OpenMP/ACC have more
or less clearly defined paths for new features.. What's the governing
policy here.. Bug fixes are easy to deal with, but does Google have
final say on the roadmap..
3) When the project is created - will it include lots of good tests?
4) It's probably used internally @google - who else will be using
this? Is the target HPC, Android.. etc

Lastly - sorry, but I don't like this kick-the-can approach to what
should be proper engineering and planning upfront. Can someone @google
gentleman's promise to actively work on playing nice with other
projects, specifically OpenMP and Intel. From my perspective nothing
stops Google from tossing it up on github or google code and letting
it stay there until all the pieces are in the correct place. Why it
*must* be an llvm project now doesn't make sense to me. When the shoe
was on the other foot (OpenMP) there was all sorts of shit and redtape
Intel (and others) had to jump around to get it included. Google has a
lot of good karma in the llvm community and maybe that's the

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list