llvm dev - Aug 2014 - [LLVMdev] LLVM+GCC collaboration BoF

Folks,

Is there any interest in having a BoF session on the GCC+LLVM collaboration?

I'd like to discuss some of the outcomes from the GNU Cauldron session
and see what we could do to make that relationship healthier.

So far, all the cross discussions I've seen on the GNU list (about
LLVM) have been very healthy and the GNU folks seem very receptive to
discussion (not so much for changing the rules, but that takes time).

However, there are some steps we can do to speed up the cross-talk,
including maybe participating on their community a bit more (regarding
extensions committee, outlining features behaviour, etc). I'm already
doing some of this on binutils and, even though we don't fully agree,
at least there is a common ground that we do.

I've already proposed on the devconf email, just let me know if there
is any interest, so we can keep it as a proposal, otherwise I'll drop
it later on.

thanks,
--renato

> On Aug 30, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Is there any interest in having a BoF session on the GCC+LLVM
collaboration?
> 
> I'd like to discuss some of the outcomes from the GNU Cauldron session
> and see what we could do to make that relationship healthier.
I'm a fan of the effort, but are any primary GCC contributors planning to
attend the LLVM dev mtg?

-Chris

On 30 Aug 2014, at 17:55, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> I'm a fan of the effort, but are any primary GCC contributors planning
to attend the LLVM dev mtg?
Is it widely advertised within the GCC community?  I presume that there are some
GCC developers in the bay area who would be able to make it, if there's
space for them at such a session and interest in having them attend.

I hosted the GNU Tools Cauldron this year and there were a few LLVM developers
other than Renato any myself there for the LLVM/GCC cooperation session.

David

> Is there any interest in having a BoF session on the GCC+LLVM
collaboration?
Collaboration is certainly a good idea, but I'm not convinced the best
way to make it happen is by hosting siloed meetings about it within
each community's gathering. It almost seems the canonical example of
how not to increase cross-talk.

The outcome of the cauldron one seems to have been (quite justifiably)
"sure, we'll talk if needed, but won't be dictated to". I
expect LLVM
developers would say exactly the same thing.

I'll make sure I'm there either way, of course.

Cheers.

Tim.

On 30 August 2014 19:50, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Collaboration is certainly a good idea, but I'm not convinced the best
> way to make it happen is by hosting siloed meetings about it within
> each community's gathering. It almost seems the canonical example of
> how not to increase cross-talk.
I agree with you, but these things take time. You don't start a poker
game "all in".

> The outcome of the cauldron one seems to have been (quite justifiably)
> "sure, we'll talk if needed, but won't be dictated to". I
expect LLVM
> developers would say exactly the same thing.
I'm expecting *exactly* that. This is all part of "the plan". :)

> I'll make sure I'm there either way, of course.
Ok, I think we have enough +1s for this one, I'll keep the proposal.

Thanks everyone, and see you there!

--renato