On 09/23/13 11:54 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:> > On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:25 AM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com > <mailto:arphaman at gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Hi everyone! >> >> Today is the official "pencils down" day for GSoC and I wrote a >> report describing what results I've achieved since my last report in >> July: >> >> http://flang-gsoc.blogspot.ie/2013/09/end-of-gsoc-report.html >> >> Thanks for this GSoC LLVM! > > Wow, this is really fantastic work. I'm surprised and impressed by > how much progress you made. > > Can you comment more about Pathscale's plans, and why they don't want > to release the code?Initially the code will continue to be developed privately, but there's a big ?<question mark> and sticky note to look at what makes best sense - It's a conservative approach, but that's how it is for now. We're open to feedback - both on and off list... -------- It's along the same lines as to why OpenCL by most vendors is developed privately..... (I realize this has gotten a lot more attention and better in the past 1-2 years)
On Sep 23, 2013, at 10:01 AM, C. Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote:> On 09/23/13 11:54 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >> On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:25 AM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com <mailto:arphaman at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone! >>> >>> Today is the official "pencils down" day for GSoC and I wrote a report describing what results I've achieved since my last report in July: >>> >>> http://flang-gsoc.blogspot.ie/2013/09/end-of-gsoc-report.html >>> >>> Thanks for this GSoC LLVM! >> >> Wow, this is really fantastic work. I'm surprised and impressed by how much progress you made. >> >> Can you comment more about Pathscale's plans, and why they don't want to release the code? > Initially the code will continue to be developed privately, but there's a big ?<question mark> and sticky note to look at what makes best sense - It's a conservative approach, but that's how it is for now.Do you have specific goals here? This is not a great way to foster the community and get contributions to the project.> It's along the same lines as to why OpenCL by most vendors is developed privately..... (I realize this has gotten a lot more attention and better in the past 1-2 years)… you're absolutely right, that is a great analogy. I think that the way OpenCL was developed, specifically its lack of open source engagement, is universally considered to be a failure that should not be repeated. Look at all the vendors who independently had to invent the same functionality, then clashed when they each tried to merge it back to mainline clang. I'm not sure what business advantage you think that a fortran frontend would give you, but you should carefully consider what you think you're achieving. -Chris
On 09/24/13 12:16 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Sep 23, 2013, at 10:01 AM, C. Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > >> On 09/23/13 11:54 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:25 AM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com <mailto:arphaman at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone! >>>> >>>> Today is the official "pencils down" day for GSoC and I wrote a report describing what results I've achieved since my last report in July: >>>> >>>> http://flang-gsoc.blogspot.ie/2013/09/end-of-gsoc-report.html >>>> >>>> Thanks for this GSoC LLVM! >>> Wow, this is really fantastic work. I'm surprised and impressed by how much progress you made. >>> >>> Can you comment more about Pathscale's plans, and why they don't want to release the code? >> Initially the code will continue to be developed privately, but there's a big ?<question mark> and sticky note to look at what makes best sense - It's a conservative approach, but that's how it is for now. > Do you have specific goals here? This is not a great way to foster the community and get contributions to the project. > >> It's along the same lines as to why OpenCL by most vendors is developed privately..... (I realize this has gotten a lot more attention and better in the past 1-2 years) > … you're absolutely right, that is a great analogy. I think that the way OpenCL was developed, specifically its lack of open source engagement, is universally considered to be a failure that should not be repeated. Look at all the vendors who independently had to invent the same functionality, then clashed when they each tried to merge it back to mainline clang. > > I'm not sure what business advantage you think that a fortran frontend would give you, but you should carefully consider what you think you're achieving.Ok - thanks for that insightful heads up. It's not really Apples vs Apples though. OpenCL has multiple companies working on it, but for Fortran - who are "all the vendors"... (Fortran has been around *a lot* longer - it's not like new players are popping up every month) --------- In the past couple of years - I've been an advocate of a Fortran-clang front-end, but until recently it wasn't very active. No magic community formed and really who cares? (devils advocate hat on) Besides ANL - who will the potential users be? (Honest question to anyone reading this) Google, Sony, Apple, Adobe??? --------- On a more technical note - flang is not upstream friendly "right now" (imho). The technical issues with integrating it cleanly into clang upstream are and will be worked out. I think if we do move to an open development model we need to be working on clang master. This will get the project more exposure as well make it easier for people to test. Fortran is totally non-c-family - It's like trying to add Python, Java or COBAL - It gets even more complicated with things like module formats, CAF and arrays. When we try to upstream our patches - who will review them? Will it be like OpenMP where things get bottlenecked waiting on reviews for (months/weeks). (This may tie into who will the users be and the overall general community interest) The project has a great start, but to put things in the right perspective - this is month #4 for a project which could take 5, 10 or even 20 "engineering years" of effort. Nothing is set in stone - this is a friendly discussion we're totally open to..
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:01:46AM +0700, "C. Bergström" wrote:> On 09/23/13 11:54 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > >On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:25 AM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com > ><mailto:arphaman at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > >>Hi everyone! > >> > >>Today is the official "pencils down" day for GSoC and I wrote a > >>report describing what results I've achieved since my last > >>report in July: > >> > >>http://flang-gsoc.blogspot.ie/2013/09/end-of-gsoc-report.html > >> > >>Thanks for this GSoC LLVM! > > > >Wow, this is really fantastic work. I'm surprised and impressed > >by how much progress you made. > > > >Can you comment more about Pathscale's plans, and why they don't > >want to release the code? > Initially the code will continue to be developed privately, but > there's a big ?<question mark> and sticky note to look at what makes > best sense - It's a conservative approach, but that's how it is for > now.Given the nature of path64, I think it would be nice to keep all parsing related parts and all semantic analysis open. It would also be nice to keep functional tests for the code generation as open as possible, even if might not fit into a "main" repository due to testing executable code. The goal would be to allow Pathscale to what they are doing on the backend without having a strongly divergating frontend, which is likely not in the interest of anyone. I am aware that flang in the current form shared code with clang in non-trivial ways and it certainly will require some effort to refactor the code on either side for allowing flang to become an integrated LLVM project. Who's interested with dealing with that on the Clang side? I hope Alex is willing to work on the flang side? Joerg
----- Original Message -----> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:01:46AM +0700, "C. Bergström" wrote: > > On 09/23/13 11:54 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > > > >On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:25 AM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com > > ><mailto:arphaman at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > >>Hi everyone! > > >> > > >>Today is the official "pencils down" day for GSoC and I wrote a > > >>report describing what results I've achieved since my last > > >>report in July: > > >> > > >>http://flang-gsoc.blogspot.ie/2013/09/end-of-gsoc-report.html > > >> > > >>Thanks for this GSoC LLVM! > > > > > >Wow, this is really fantastic work. I'm surprised and impressed > > >by how much progress you made. > > > > > >Can you comment more about Pathscale's plans, and why they don't > > >want to release the code? > > Initially the code will continue to be developed privately, but > > there's a big ?<question mark> and sticky note to look at what > > makes > > best sense - It's a conservative approach, but that's how it is for > > now. > > Given the nature of path64, I think it would be nice to keep all > parsing > related parts and all semantic analysis open. It would also be nice > to > keep functional tests for the code generation as open as possible, > even > if might not fit into a "main" repository due to testing executable > code. The goal would be to allow Pathscale to what they are doing on > the > backend without having a strongly divergating frontend, which is > likely > not in the interest of anyone. > > I am aware that flang in the current form shared code with clang in > non-trivial ways and it certainly will require some effort to > refactor > the code on either side for allowing flang to become an integrated > LLVM > project. Who's interested with dealing with that on the Clang side? I > hope Alex is willing to work on the flang side?Alex may be otherwise captured for the time being, but I plan on working on this over the next few months. As I've mentioned in the past, I'd like the two projects to share the driver (or at least the driver infrastructure), and I'd like to give flang a C preprocessor based on Clang's. Regarding other code sharing, we'll need to do some serious thinking about what parts should actually be shared in the long run vs. what's acting as a crutch right now. -Hal> > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory