[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate
From: |
Biagio Lucini |
Subject: |
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate |
Date: |
Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:13:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5.94 |
Hi Jacob, thanks for your comments.
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 12.55, Jacob Weismann Poulsen wrote:
>
> 2) As to the content of libgomp I made a few early experiments
> that wasn't meant to make its way to the official tree. The
> reason is simply that I didn't really think about the structures
> nor the implementation and as Scott has said on several occasions
> (and I think that we all agree on this), we better base the
> implementation on some kind of design document. I would recommend
> that the initial commit will take its offspring in the contents
> at the savannah CVS instead or in version 1.1 of the files in the
> cvs-ball that I mailed you and Scott a long time ago (if I recall
> it right - it seems to be ages ago).
>
Well, this has been debated quite a lot. I was sharing your opinion at the
beginning, but Diego sort of convinced me that this is not the case, since
having gomp into some branch of gcc will help us to get visibility and to
receive more comments from other people and get more people involved too.
Putting out some code at this stage could also allow us to receive
constructive feedback for the design. If you are concerned of going into the
official tree, my understanding is that a branch is not an official tree and
you are free of doing on it whatever you like (subject to the maintainer
approval, of course). All those arguments to me seem enough to submit a patch
to gcc-patches for the gomp_branch. Let me stress that with this patch you
can compile and run OpenMP program (albeit in dummy mode): what this means is
that people will get for the first time a proof of the existence of OpenMP
within gcc. Then, maybe everything will need to be erased after we have a
good design (which - I agree with you - is fundamental). But meanwhile we
would have discussed, we would have received input, we would have received
more help and perhaps even flames that can be useful for future development.
Also, for my personal point of view, I have learnt a lot by working just on
the building of the tree within gcc. This would not have been possible by
simply committing the first tarball into savannah CVS. I think there is lots
more than can be learnt by using a pragmatic approach. However, this is
mainly your code, and my opinion here counts very little; but since the stubs
are public, I would like at least to submit a libgomp_stubs. So let me know
if you want some code to be removed from the current tree, and I will take
fully responsibility myself for the rest. Of course, similar remarks also
apply to the other two of you that have contributed code, namely Scott and
Lars.
Thanks,
Biagio
--
=========================================================
Biagio Lucini
Institut Fuer Theoretische Physik
ETH Hoenggerberg
CH-8093 Zuerich - Switzerland
Tel. +41 (0)1 6332562
=========================================================
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, (continued)
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Diego Novillo, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Biagio Lucini, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Biagio Lucini, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Biagio Lucini, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/11/01
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Jacob Weismann Poulsen, 2004/11/02
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate,
Biagio Lucini <=
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Lars Segerlund, 2004/11/02
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/11/02
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Biagio Lucini, 2004/11/02
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/11/02
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Lars Segerlund, 2004/11/02
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Diego Novillo, 2004/11/02
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Release candidate, Scott Robert Ladd, 2004/11/02