[llvm-dev] RFC Adding Fortran tests to LLVM Test Suite

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 18:10, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > If you only add infrastructure to build Fortran programs inside SPEC,
> then
> > your change would be biased towards an external benchmark that is private
> > to some companies.
>
> That doesn't make any sense to me.
> Nobody suggested to change anything "inside SPEC".
>

Good part of your reply assumes I meant what you say above. I didn't.

We're talking past each other. Let me try again.

As I said on my original reply, I'm very supportive of the initiative to
add Fortran to the test suite. To add tests, benchmarks and openmp. This is
very good news.

But the test-suite doesn't have a core ownership, a group that has a plan
and implements all the parts of a bigger design goal. For many years we
have tried to unify tests and benchmarks, Kristof did a great job rallying
people around and so many other people contributed, but once it "works",
people stop paying attention.

I just want to make sure that the overall support for Fortran in the
test-suite is focused on building tests, benchmarks and other tools that
are available upstream to all users.

If adding Fortran support on the existing SPEC scripts is orthogonal, then
it shouldn't be part of this discussion. If it's not, then it shouldn't be
the main driver for the rest of the infrastructure.

> Public build-bots will start building those tests and benchmarks
> (remember,
> > it's not just benchmarks in there), and you'll need some time to adjust
> > strategy until it all works across the board.
>
> Strategy: If you don't set it up to run Fortran codes, it won't.
>

I'm going to take this as a tongue-in-cheek comment. The reducionism here
isn't really helpful.

Fortran is just the language, but there are architectures and operating
systems that need adjusting, too.

Fortran benchmark support in the LLVM Test Suite, and literally
> everything else mentioned in the initial RFC, is beneficial to the
> community. SPEC support is not something harmful.
>

We definitely agree on that.

How did you come to that conclusion after the initial RFC explicitly listed
> other benchmarks and apps we want to include in to the test suite?
>

The original RFC was very clear. Your response was less so.

On my reply to the RFC, I said I worry that we're focusing on SPEC too
early. I'd rather make sure it works upstream before adding SPEC to the
mix.

The reason I tried to convey (and clearly failed) is that the test-suite
isn't a robust and well designed infrastructure, but a patch-work from
different approaches over the years, which seems to "work fine" with what
we have.

I may have read that wrong, but it sounded to me as if you were defending
the prioritisation of SPEC "and some micro benchmarks" over the rest of the
proposal.

I think that's a mistake, because it risks being the main thing that gets
added and then not much else comes later (priorities change, etc).

If my interpretation is wrong, I apologise and we can ignore our past
exchange. I'm still very supportive of this RFC. :)

cheers,
--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201125/7b908d32/attachment.html>