On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Tobias Grosser <tob...@grosser.es> wrote: > On 06.11.2014 07:04, Roman Gareev wrote: >>> >>> CLooG is not necessarily needed. You can run graphite just with ISL. The >>> main reason that ISL code generation is not enabled by default is that we >>> did not yet get extensive testing and it was unclear who will have the >>> time >>> to fix possible bugs. >> >> >> Could you please advise me which test suites should be used to make >> performance comparison between CLooG and ISL generator? (I would like >> to do this, even though the old generator is removed). > > > I do not have specific advices. You can use various open source benchmarks > e.g. the LLVM test suite or, if you have access, you could run SPEC or > something. > >>> @Mircae, Roman: Would you have time to help with bug-fixing if we do the >>> switch now? (I am happy to review patches and give advice, but can not do >>> the full move myself) >> >> >> I could find time for this. What do you mean by ‘switch’? If I’m not >> mistaken, ISL generator is already used by default. Should we remove >> support of CLooG generator and all files related to it? > > > Wow, I must really have been sleeping (or just forgetting). The switch > already happened. This is amazing. > > As the ISL code generator has been default since a while and we did not get > many bug reports, the actual switch seems to have worked well. We could > probably still need some testing, but in this case it is most likely time to > drop the CLooG support entirely. Are you interested to provide the relevant > patches? > > Also, as Tobias suggested we should raise the minimal supported isl level to > 0.14 to be sure PR 62289 is fixed.
As I am testing with system isl/cloog that would be unfortunate as it means I'd either drop testing graphite for 4.8 and 4.9 or for 5.0 ... AFAIK ISL 12.x and 13+ cannot co-exist in the system due to include file conflicts. Richard. > Cheers, > Tobias >
