llvm dev - Jul 2014 - [LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: Rename Target R600 -> AMDGPU

Hi,

Now that the 3.5 branch has been made, I would like to propose renaming
the R600 target to AMDGPU.

R600 is the name of an AMDGPU GPU that was released about 8 years ago.
The R600 backend supports this GPU and also all other GPUs which have
been made since then.  When people see the name R600 they often assume that
only the older GPU family is supported which is not true.

The reason that the backend was originally called R600 and not AMDGPU
is because there was concern that the name AMDGPU was too generic, and it
would be confusing if AMD came out with a new architecture which required a
new backend.  In this happened, we would have an AMDGPU backend, which
didn't
support all AMD GPUs.

We actually have an example of this situation today with ARM and ARM64, and
this doesn't seem to have caused too much confusion.  Plus, I would much
prefer people try a backend thinking something was supported and have
it not work than people assuming the backend didn't work for their GPU
and ignoring it completely.

If I were to rename the backend, I would keep the name R600 around in the
autoconf and CMake build systems for at least one release for compatibility, and
I would also add a new triple: amdgpu.

What does everyone think about this?  Are there any potential pitfalls with
renaming
that I should be aware of?

Thanks,
Tom

On Jul 28, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Now that the 3.5 branch has been made, I would like to propose renaming
> the R600 target to AMDGPU.
> 
> R600 is the name of an AMDGPU GPU that was released about 8 years ago.
> The R600 backend supports this GPU and also all other GPUs which have
> been made since then.  When people see the name R600 they often assume that
> only the older GPU family is supported which is not true.
This makes a lot of sense to me,

-Chris

Hi Tom,

Though I can't comment on the validity of renaming it, if the back end
supports more than just R600, I agree it's misleading.

On 28 July 2014 16:49, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net>
wrote:
> If I were to rename the backend, I would keep the name R600 around in the
> autoconf and CMake build systems for at least one release for
compatibility, and
> I would also add a new triple: amdgpu.
Renaming back-ends have happened before, on a much more complex way,
and it should be reasonably straightforward to do it again.

However, I would ask for it to be done after the release 3.5.0 is out,
or backporting bugs in that back-end (or generic parts that use the
naming) would be a pain.

cheers,
--renato

> What does everyone think about this?  Are there any potential pitfalls with
renaming
> that I should be aware of?
>
Please. :)

-eric

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 05:03:49PM +0100, Renato Golin
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Though I can't comment on the validity of renaming it, if the back end
> supports more than just R600, I agree it's misleading.
> 
> On 28 July 2014 16:49, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
> > If I were to rename the backend, I would keep the name R600 around in
the
> > autoconf and CMake build systems for at least one release for
compatibility, and
> > I would also add a new triple: amdgpu.
> 
> Renaming back-ends have happened before, on a much more complex way,
> and it should be reasonably straightforward to do it again.
> 
> However, I would ask for it to be done after the release 3.5.0 is out,
> or backporting bugs in that back-end (or generic parts that use the
> naming) would be a pain.
> 
This makes sense.  I can wait until the 3.5.0 release.

-Tom
> cheers,
> --renato