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

Mon Jun 2 11:08:23 PDT 2014

I’m truly sorry for the frustration.  Unfortunately, I can’t release any of the code until it has gone through the entire review process here at Intel.

Johnny

From: Jack Howarth [mailto:howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 12:39 PM
To: Peyton, Jonathan L
Cc: Andrey Bokhanko; openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu; David Chisnall
Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [PATCH] [Revisedx2] Initial cmake support

Jonathan,
      Thanks for the update. We had no idea that this work was in progress. It is unfortunate that an openmp repository at Intel (like that for clang-omp) doesn't exist to monitor such work before it is submitted to llvm.org<http://llvm.org>. In any case, the main changes that I implemented compared to the legacy cmake files on the openmprtl site are listed in...

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-dev/2014-June/000154.html

I actually have darwin9 powerpc machine with our fink llvm34-3.4.1 packaging installed (that contains a merge of the current clang-omp branch changes applied onto the 3.4.1 release). If you could shared your proposed CMakeList.txt changes for openmp on list, I would be happy to report back if the powerpc support works on this ancient target (its the only non-intel machine I have access to).
         Jack

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Peyton, Jonathan L <jonathan.l.peyton at intel.com<mailto:jonathan.l.peyton at intel.com>> wrote:
Hello All,

I have been here at Intel working on an ‘exact’ translation of the build.pl<http://build.pl> build system to an identical CMake build system (without the build.pl<http://build.pl> Perl wraparound of course).  I’ve looked at the recently added CMake build system and appreciate the work you all have done.  The system
I’ve created has Windows support, Fortran support, Mac Fat Library support, Intel-specific header creation support, Intel MIC support as well as mirroring the build.pl<http://build.pl> system for both Mac and Linux using clang, gcc, or icc.
All build types (release, debug) and library types (stubs, normal) are supported as well.  This build system is currently going through the review process and should be done very soon.

I’d be happy to answer any questions regarding the new CMake build system.

Thanks,
Johnny

From: openmp-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:openmp-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu> [mailto:openmp-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:openmp-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu>] On Behalf Of Jack Howarth
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 11:14 AM
To: Andrey Bokhanko
Cc: openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu<mailto:openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu>; David Chisnall

Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [PATCH] [Revisedx2] Initial cmake support

Andrey,
     Also, note that when I say a single set of patches, I don't mean a single patch but number individual patches submitted as a complete patch set. After many years of carefully monitoring merges in FSF gcc (and helping mitigate the breakage from them on the darwin targets since Apple abandoned gcc), it has become clear that there are certain social pressures in the review process that a unified patch set creates. When a complete set of patches are submitted and say 90% of them are quickly reviewed, approved and committed, this results in a social pressure for the remaining reviewers to accelerate their work so as to not be seen as retarding the merge.
           Jack

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com<mailto:howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com>> wrote:
Andrey,
    Reading through the the thread at http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140519/106158.html, I can understand the sensitivities here on the topic of reviews. IMHO, the process of integrating clang-omp and openmp into the standard llvm/compiler-rt/clang build would go much smoother if the merge of clang-omp changes were sent up stream as a cohesive set of patches to merge the branch like FSF gcc does. I know this will set the hair on edge for some of the llvm developers, but when a merge is submitted as a single set of patches, the upstream developers are forced to take the review process far more seriously. Especially, if the reviews are coming in slowly, submitting these patches upstream in a piecemeal approach will only aggravate the problem of timely reviews.
            Jack

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com<mailto:andreybokhanko at gmail.com>> wrote:
Alp,
With all respect, a few of assertions you made are simply *not true*.

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com<mailto:alp at nuanti.com>> wrote:
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.

What "discussions... that go back weeks" you are speaking about?!

Jack started his "On Improving the Build System revisited" thread on May 30. This is four days ago, not weeks.

And since when "all the best practices" include introducing a new build system without getting project architect's consent? -- especially after explicitly asked to do so, a message that you conveniently ignored.

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.

What timescales you are speaking about?!

For reference, we wait for *weeks* for our OpenMP in clang patches to be reviewed! And we commit them *only* after explicit consent of one of clang code owners -- even if we already got code review from someone else.

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?

That's *exactly* what we did back in March.

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-dev/2014-March/000055.html
Yours,
Andrey

_______________________________________________
Openmp-dev mailing list
Openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu<mailto:Openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/attachments/20140602/fa6131fd/attachment.html>