On Jun 18, 2014 6:03 PM, Roman Gareev wrote:
>
> I used trunk and compiled these patches only with isl 0.12 and ClooG
> 0.18.1. Which versions of these libraries are need to be checked for
> compatibility?
That's fine. Please post the patches for wider review at gcc patches. Also
mention that
I used trunk and compiled these patches only with isl 0.12 and ClooG
0.18.1. Which versions of these libraries are need to be checked for
compatibility?
--
Cheers, Roman Gareev
On 18/06/2014 15:22, Roman Gareev wrote:
Hi Tobias,
I made a separate patch and rebased the previous one. They are
attached to this letter.
I am surprised. Are all these includes really needed to get _this_ patch
compile? (I asked this before).
I saw your previous comment related to this an
Hi Tobias,
I made a separate patch and rebased the previous one. They are
attached to this letter.
> I am surprised. Are all these includes really needed to get _this_ patch
> compile? (I asked this before).
I saw your previous comment related to this and the following includes
were removed: is
On 08/06/2014 19:43, Roman Gareev wrote:
Hi Tobias,
This file is empty. It seems to be the perfect place for gloog_isl,
maybe give it a more descriptive name. E.g.,
graphite_regenerate_ast_isl()
We could then rename gloog, to graphite_regenerate_ast_cloog().
gloog comes from graphite + cloog
Hi Tobias,
> This file is empty. It seems to be the perfect place for gloog_isl,
> maybe give it a more descriptive name. E.g.,
>
> graphite_regenerate_ast_isl()
>
> We could then rename gloog, to graphite_regenerate_ast_cloog().
>
> gloog comes from graphite + cloog and does not make sense in the
On 01/06/2014 01:21, Roman Gareev wrote:
Hi Tobias,
Allright. It seems you understood the tree traversel. For the actual
patch that we want to commit, let's leave it out for now. Instead,
let's try to get a minimal patch that only adds the flag and the new
file for the isl_ast stuff. In case
Hi Tobias,
> Allright. It seems you understood the tree traversel. For the actual
> patch that we want to commit, let's leave it out for now. Instead,
> let's try to get a minimal patch that only adds the flag and the new
> file for the isl_ast stuff. In case the isl is choosen as code
> generati
On 25/05/2014 13:12, Roman Gareev wrote:
Hi Tobias,
I tried to incorporate all your comments in the following patch. It
also contains traversing of ISL AST and its dump to a file. You can
find out more about this at the following link
http://romangareev.blogspot.ru/2014/05/gsoc-report-i.html
Hi Tobias,
I tried to incorporate all your comments in the following patch. It
also contains traversing of ISL AST and its dump to a file. You can
find out more about this at the following link
http://romangareev.blogspot.ru/2014/05/gsoc-report-i.html
--
Cheers, Roman Gareev
patch
Description:
On 16/05/2014 21:49, Roman Gareev wrote:
Hi Tobias,
what is the difference you see between ISL AST generation and code
generation?
By “ISL AST generation”, I mean ISL AST generation without generation
of GIMPLE code.
Alright.
What are your plans to separate the ISL AST generation? Do you
Hi Tobias,
> what is the difference you see between ISL AST generation and code
> generation?
By “ISL AST generation”, I mean ISL AST generation without generation
of GIMPLE code.
> What are your plans to separate the ISL AST generation? Do you foresee any
> difficulties/problems?
According to
On 12/05/2014 20:35, Roman Gareev wrote:
Hi Tobias,
thank you for your advice!
On the other side, I think it is a good idea to simultaneously keep track of
the design you have in mind and the first steps you are planning to take.
Even though the full design may still need some time,
some basic
Hi Tobias,
thank you for your advice!
> On the other side, I think it is a good idea to simultaneously keep track of
> the design you have in mind and the first steps you are planning to take.
> Even though the full design may still need some time,
> some basic decisions can probably already be t
14 matches
Mail list logo
