[Openmp-dev] [PATCH] [Revisedx2] Initial cmake support
Hal Finkel
hfinkel at anl.gov
Mon Jun 2 11:41:45 PDT 2014
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan L Peyton" <jonathan.l.peyton at intel.com>
> To: "Jack Howarth" <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com>
> Cc: openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu, "David Chisnall" <dc552 at cam.ac.uk>
> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 1:08:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [PATCH] [Revisedx2] Initial cmake support
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
Can you explain what is going on here? What kind of review (code, legal, both, something else) and by whom (I'm not asking for specific names)? Does this review prerequisite also apply to bug fixes? How long do you expect it to take?
Thanks,
Hal
>
>
>
> 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 . 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 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I have been here at Intel working on an ‘exact’ translation of the
> build.pl build system to an identical CMake build system (without
> the 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 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 ] 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 ; 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 > 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 > 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 > 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
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>
--
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
More information about the Openmp-dev
mailing list