Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
Hi, On Sun, 14 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: which would be exactly the way no distribution would use it. So please just don't bundle ISL with CLoog. Well, I would simply have linked the bundled ISL statically into libcloog. Which would still require not exporting the (bundled) libisl symbols from libcloog. Looking at the cloog git repo it doesn't seem that it knows anything about symbol versions (and it wouldn't help static libs anyway). No, the only even barely sane way is for the cloog version GCC should use to not include a builtin copy of some stale version of isl at all. Ciao, Michael.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote: On 08/13/2011 06:02 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:32, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: I advise either removing the option for CLooG to use bundled ISL, or making the bundled version the recommended version for GCC. Having too many ways to configure things is bad. I would prefer using the ISL bundled with CLooG and not have to provide a way to configure GCC with ISL. which would be exactly the way no distribution would use it. So please just don't bundle ISL with CLoog. Well, I would simply have linked the bundled ISL statically into libcloog. Richard.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:32, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: I advise either removing the option for CLooG to use bundled ISL, or making the bundled version the recommended version for GCC. Having too many ways to configure things is bad. I would prefer using the ISL bundled with CLooG and not have to provide a way to configure GCC with ISL. Sebastian
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:02:40AM -0500, Sebastian Pop wrote: On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:32, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: I advise either removing the option for CLooG to use bundled ISL, or making the bundled version the recommended version for GCC. Having too many ways to configure things is bad. I would prefer using the ISL bundled with CLooG and not have to provide a way to configure GCC with ISL. Sebastian, On a related issue, only isl git... http://repo.or.cz/w/isl.git seems to have these newer changes. These changes need to be synchronized with cloog.org git in order to test your proposed patches. Jack Sebastian
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On 08/13/2011 06:02 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:32, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: I advise either removing the option for CLooG to use bundled ISL, or making the bundled version the recommended version for GCC. Having too many ways to configure things is bad. I would prefer using the ISL bundled with CLooG and not have to provide a way to configure GCC with ISL. which would be exactly the way no distribution would use it. So please just don't bundle ISL with CLoog. Matthias
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:26, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote: On 08/13/2011 06:02 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:32, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: I advise either removing the option for CLooG to use bundled ISL, or making the bundled version the recommended version for GCC. Having too many ways to configure things is bad. I would prefer using the ISL bundled with CLooG and not have to provide a way to configure GCC with ISL. which would be exactly the way no distribution would use it. So please just don't bundle ISL with CLoog. Sven also pointed out that it would be a mistake to use the ISL bundled with CLooG. So, I will prepare a patch for GCC to use a configure option --with-isl. Sebastian
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:16:05AM -0500, Sebastian Pop wrote:
---
gcc/doc/install.texi |8 +++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi
index 368221f..f2b2fd9 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/install.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/install.texi
@@ -368,6 +368,11 @@ It can be downloaded from
@uref{http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/}.
The configure option @option{--with-ppl} should be used if PPL is not
installed in your default library search path.
+@item Integer Set Library (ISL) version 0.08
Are you going to wait until 0.08 is available before
applying these patches?
+Necessary to build GCC with the Graphite loop optimizations.
+It can be downloaded from @uref{http://www.kotnet.org/~skimo/isl/}.
Please use http://freshmeat.net/projects/isl/ instead.
skimo
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
---
gcc/doc/install.texi |8 +++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi
index 368221f..f2b2fd9 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/install.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/install.texi
@@ -368,6 +368,11 @@ It can be downloaded from
@uref{http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/}.
The configure option @option{--with-ppl} should be used if PPL is not
installed in your default library search path.
+@item Integer Set Library (ISL) version 0.08
+
+Necessary to build GCC with the Graphite loop optimizations.
+It can be downloaded from @uref{http://www.kotnet.org/~skimo/isl/}.
So have things changed relative to what was said in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00873.html about ISL being
included in CLooG-ISL?
Please propose all changes to libraries for building GCC in separate
threads on the gcc@ list rather than just in patches on gcc-patches - the
principle of what would be needed should be clearly understood before
things get to the point of patch posting. Make very clear what different
configurations have been tested, including both static and shared
libraries, different hosts (as many as possible among the primary and
secondary platforms) and Canadian cross configurations, and solicit
assistance to test other platforms as needed. See what was done for the
original inclusion of Graphite and the associated use of PPL. Make clear
whether versions of the libraries in question might affect the code
generated, and if so then default to version checks tight enough to avoid
such dependence.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:02:18PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
+@item Integer Set Library (ISL) version 0.08
+
+Necessary to build GCC with the Graphite loop optimizations.
+It can be downloaded from @uref{http://www.kotnet.org/~skimo/isl/}.
So have things changed relative to what was said in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00873.html about ISL being
included in CLooG-ISL?
isl is still included in CLooG, but Sebastian now wants to use isl
itself in graphite.
skimo
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:35:24PM +0200, Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:02:18PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
+@item Integer Set Library (ISL) version 0.08
+
+Necessary to build GCC with the Graphite loop optimizations.
+It can be downloaded from @uref{http://www.kotnet.org/~skimo/isl/}.
So have things changed relative to what was said in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00873.html about ISL being
included in CLooG-ISL?
isl is still included in CLooG, but Sebastian now wants to use isl
itself in graphite.
skimo
Will graphite be totally converted to isl such that ppl can be deprecated
in time for the gcc 4.7 release?
Jack
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:02:18PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
+@item Integer Set Library (ISL) version 0.08
+
+Necessary to build GCC with the Graphite loop optimizations.
+It can be downloaded from @uref{http://www.kotnet.org/~skimo/isl/}.
So have things changed relative to what was said in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00873.html about ISL being
included in CLooG-ISL?
isl is still included in CLooG, but Sebastian now wants to use isl
itself in graphite.
I don't see why that should make any difference to the build requirements.
If CLooG-ISL builds and installs a library libisl.a as well as
libcloog-isl.a (as config/cloog.m4 thinks it does at present), why should
someone need to download and install a separate ISL package rather than
getting libisl.a from CLooG-ISL?
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 06:56:38PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: I don't see why that should make any difference to the build requirements. If CLooG-ISL builds and installs a library libisl.a as well as libcloog-isl.a (as config/cloog.m4 thinks it does at present), why should someone need to download and install a separate ISL package rather than getting libisl.a from CLooG-ISL? The one that comes with CLooG may not be recent enough. skimo
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 06:56:38PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: I don't see why that should make any difference to the build requirements. If CLooG-ISL builds and installs a library libisl.a as well as libcloog-isl.a (as config/cloog.m4 thinks it does at present), why should someone need to download and install a separate ISL package rather than getting libisl.a from CLooG-ISL? The one that comes with CLooG may not be recent enough. Do you mean there is not only a requirement to build both libraries, but there is a requirement to build CLooG *first*, then ISL, so that ISL's libisl.a overwrites CLooG's rather than the other way round (supposing that they are installed in the same prefix)? That's clearly not a sensible approach. If you can't make the version included in CLooG the right one for GCC, then stop including it in CLooG altogether (like GMP stopped including MPFR some years ago). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:16:55PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: Do you mean there is not only a requirement to build both libraries, but there is a requirement to build CLooG *first*, then ISL, so that ISL's libisl.a overwrites CLooG's rather than the other way round (supposing that they are installed in the same prefix)? No. You build isl first and configure CLooG to use that isl. skimo
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:50, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:35:24PM +0200, Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:02:18PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
+@item Integer Set Library (ISL) version 0.08
+
+Necessary to build GCC with the Graphite loop optimizations.
+It can be downloaded from @uref{http://www.kotnet.org/~skimo/isl/}.
So have things changed relative to what was said in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00873.html about ISL being
included in CLooG-ISL?
isl is still included in CLooG, but Sebastian now wants to use isl
itself in graphite.
skimo
Will graphite be totally converted to isl such that ppl can be deprecated
in time for the gcc 4.7 release?
Jack
Yes, having GCC only depend on ISL and CLooG-ISL (and not depend
anymore on PPL) is our plan for 4.7.
The rationale behind this is that with PPL it would be very difficult to fix
bugs due to wrap around unsigned types, like this one:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47594
With ISL it is possible to represent the wrapping types and fix this bug.
Sebastian
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:16:55PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: Do you mean there is not only a requirement to build both libraries, but there is a requirement to build CLooG *first*, then ISL, so that ISL's libisl.a overwrites CLooG's rather than the other way round (supposing that they are installed in the same prefix)? No. You build isl first and configure CLooG to use that isl. Will CLooG give an error if you configure it in such a way that its isl would overwrite one previously installed? If not, this seems too error-prone - there's no obvious way for CLooG to know whether a previously installed isl comes from a previous installation of CLooG (should be overwritten) or was installed on its own (so CLooG should be built to use it). The requirements for how CLooG is configured need to be clearly documented in GCC's documentation. But, first, all these proposals (starting with the one to use CLooG-ISL instead of CLooG-PPL) need to be raised in their own threads on the gcc list, making clear exactly what is proposed, how it has been tested on different hosts and how many versions the requirements are expected to be stable for - patch submission should be the very last stage after sufficient discussion (and notice to the many GCC builders who may not follow gcc-patches) on the gcc list. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:22:04PM +0200, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:16:55PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: Do you mean there is not only a requirement to build both libraries, but there is a requirement to build CLooG *first*, then ISL, so that ISL's libisl.a overwrites CLooG's rather than the other way round (supposing that they are installed in the same prefix)? No. You build isl first and configure CLooG to use that isl. skimo Skimo, Currently we don't have any checks for the minimal isl version required. Since the proposed patches only include a requirement for cloog 0.16.3, this clearly is insufficent to force the use of the correct isl version. Will isl continue to be bundled with cloog such that the required version of both isl and cloog will be determined from the cloog version numbering? Jack
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:28:52PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:16:55PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: Do you mean there is not only a requirement to build both libraries, but there is a requirement to build CLooG *first*, then ISL, so that ISL's libisl.a overwrites CLooG's rather than the other way round (supposing that they are installed in the same prefix)? No. You build isl first and configure CLooG to use that isl. Will CLooG give an error if you configure it in such a way that its isl would overwrite one previously installed? If not, this seems too error-prone - there's no obvious way for CLooG to know whether a previously installed isl comes from a previous installation of CLooG (should be overwritten) or was installed on its own (so CLooG should be built to use it). If CLooG is told to use a previously built isl, it won't even compile the bundled isl. skimo
Re: [PATCH 2/2] document ISL requirement for GCC installation
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 03:30:25PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: Skimo, Currently we don't have any checks for the minimal isl version required. I assume they will be added at some point. AFAIU, Sebastian just started working on this. It will take some time for him to finish the transition. Anyway, I'm not involved in graphite development. I was just asked to review some patches on their use of isl. skimo
