[Openmp-dev] AArch64 support

[Cownie, James H]

For anything I can review - I do so pretty quickly (certainly not 6 weeks).
Sure, my point was not that your reviews take a long time, but that you sent a previous version of the pacth back in October, which was reviewed fairly rapidly, and what looked like a bug was pointed out. Then there was silence for ~ 6 weeks before these latest revisions. But, really this is all irrelevant, it’s just that had the latest version appeared a few weeks ago more people would have been around to look at it.

While I realize this patch has been outstanding - my "holiday" activities and "job" are not the same thing. So I was hoping to take care of this in my "free" time.
Sure, I’ve done a startup…

-- Jim

James Cownie <james.h.cownie at intel.com>
SSG/DPD/TCAR (Technical Computing, Analyzers and Runtimes)
Tel: +44 117 9071438

From: C Bergström [mailto:cbergstrom at pathscale.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 3:59 PM
To: Cownie, James H
Cc: Peyton, Jonathan L; openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu; Bliss, Brian E
Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] AArch64 support



On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Cownie, James H <james.h.cownie at intel.com<mailto:james.h.cownie at intel.com>> wrote:
As you say, it is holiday season and many people (including Johnny) are on vacation.

I am nervous about committing a change and then immediately going on holiday myself, (especially when the ball was in your court on these patches that are now so urgent for ~6 weeks).

Having a buildbot is great, especially if it is pushing results somewhere public, but surely your buildbot should only need a one line change to choose which repository to check out from, so you can do most of the work to get it running with it looking at your internal tree, and then switch to the LLVM tree easily once it’s all running.

For anything I can review - I do so pretty quickly (certainly not 6 weeks). While I realize this patch has been outstanding - my "holiday" activities and "job" are not the same thing. So I was hoping to take care of this in my "free" time.

The patch had already been reviewed before and the points which needed to be fixed should  be resolved. So maybe I was wrongly a bit impatient or thinking it was "ready"



More generally (and not needed for these patches, but so you can see where we’re going), I’d like to tidy up the way we’re handling the multiple architectures to make the code cleaner and porting easier.

I agree clean-up is needed, but starting a new thread may get better visibility and allow more discussion. If you resend it I'll see if I can come up with any constructive ideas. (I am not a fan of #if hell and strongly prefer feature tests)

I'm fairly confident my patch adds functionality and doesn't break anything existing.. thus the risk is "low"..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/attachments/20141223/8d62e6d4/attachment.html>