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

Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 1 09:04:26 PDT 2016

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 8:29 AM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 7:42 AM, C Bergström via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> I still don't see why
>>> they can't fork it on github or create a project to let it bake and
>>> get some users or traction.
>> The intent may be that instead of creating a separate community of users, it'd create its community inside the llvm projects community. That looks like a nice "feature" long term.
>> Cost/benefit: cost is not really existent, potential benefits are interesting.
> Not true - the cost isn't zero.
> Of the top of my head...
> #1 The project will mix and blend with other programming models - The
> shared runtime should cover all the popular stuff and "this"

True, but I see it as a positive things: the runtime will be designed in a way more generic/capable.
Also, it means that we gets the SE authors/maintainers to contribute to the runtime (otherwise the projects is dead and can be ditched), making the runtime more "alive".


> #2 User confusion - Promoting this over other more established
> projects and models is just another turd in the pot
> Lots of things are interesting.. lets take Legion as an example.. that
> little heard of project at *least* has a bunch of examples and more
> docs than SE..
> https://github.com/StanfordLegion/legion/tree/stable/examples
> Why do I feel so strongly - because I've been dealing with
> here-today-gone-tomorrow programming models for 8 years now... It's
> boring and wastes a lot of time. Research projects should incubate
> outside the tree before being included with production parts.

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list