[Openmp-dev] [PATCH] [Revisedx2] Initial cmake support

[Alp Toker]

On 02/06/2014 13:19, Cownie, James H wrote:
> OK, sorry, my tone may have been wrong here.
>
> I am absolutely glad to have people contributing, and certainly don't want to put people off.

Hi Jim,

There's no problem at all in superseding the current system if, as it 
sounds, the one you've been cooking up is an improvement! I'm excited 
but it's the first anyone in the community has heard of this.

It should be made clear that the current OpenMP runtime CMake build 
system has been in development for some time, including on-list 
discussions in the LLVM community that go back weeks following all the 
best practices we have. The only thing that changed is that C. Bergstrom 
graciously provided the sign-off we needed to integrate Jack's work late 
last week.

So it's a mischaracterisation to say this happened over the weekend. 
Even if it did that would be on the long side compared to timescales 
seen on llvm-commits. Thanks to Jack Howarth and C. Bergström we now 
have a pretty cool build system in ToT which serves users who were 
previously excluded due to the custom build scripts, while there's still 
no public patch available for the work you mentioned this morning.

In general it's a good idea to participate in on-list discussions and 
give a heads up if you see people discussing features you have plans 
for. Is there anything else in the pipeline?

> (ISTR that I bought Alp at least one beer when we met in London :-)).

It'll take more than one beer! Seriously though, I'm sure the two pieces 
of work will converge trivially. The next round's on me so please 
lighten up ;-)

Cheers
Alp.



>
>
> -- Jim
>
> James Cownie <james.h.cownie at intel.com>
> SSG/DPD/TCAR (Technical Computing, Analyzers and Runtimes)
> Tel: +44 117 9071438
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Chisnall [mailto:dc552 at cam.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 11:14 AM
> To: Cownie, James H
> Cc: Alp Toker; Jack Howarth; openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu; "C. Bergström"
> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [PATCH] [Revisedx2] Initial cmake support
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> I think there are a few things seriously wrong here.
>
> On 2 Jun 2014, at 10:50, Cownie, James H <james.h.cownie at intel.com> wrote:
>
>> * You are moving too fast; all of this has been done since noon on
>> Friday here in the UK,  and I was out on Friday afternoon and do not
>> work at weekends. I have therefore had no chance to  look at it before
>> it was checked in. (And I'm supposed to be a key reviewer and
>> architect here...)
>>
>> * A change like this (which provides a whole new build system) requires more than one review.
> In open source, incremental changes are usually preferred.  Adding a new (not-yet-default) built system in response to community need is a good thing, even if it is not perfect.
>
>> * Since everyone complained so much, we have been working on a CMAKE
>> based build system here at Intel  that we hope to push this week,
>> which *does* support Windows, icc, gcc, clang etc
> That is simply not how open source development works.  If you have a private fork that has extensive changes and someone commits something that makes merging them difficult then that is *your problem*, not that of the wider community.  This is the fundamental basis of open source development: stuff in the public repository is canonical.
>
> Developing code in private and then doing big code drops is *not* a good way of interacting with the community.  With my hat on as a representative of an operating system that ships clang as the default compiler and would like to see OpenMP work out of the box, I've been following this list and I was not aware that this is something that you were working on.
>
> Discussions about incorporating a CMake build system date back to 3 March on this list, and I did not find any posts from anyone at Intel indicating that you guys were working on it until your post from today.  Indeed, I identified lack of a functional build system as one of the key blockers to portability in my first email to this list.
>
>> So, at the point when I commit that, I'm going to remove these changes.
> I trust that your changes will undergo external review?
>
> David
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>

-- 
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts