I did not review the changes since it's all about removing code, which is always a good thing. As long as you run enough test (make sure enough openMP test), I am fine with the check in Sun
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:29 PM, David Coakley <dcoak...@gmail.com> wrote: > Christopher, thanks for the input, I agree with your reasons for > removing the code. > > Have any of the Open64 gatekeepers looked at this change yet? > > 2012/2/27 "C. Bergström" <cbergst...@pathscale.com>: >> On 02/27/12 09:23 AM, David Coakley wrote: >>> >>> To answer a few questions: >>> >>> Q: What is PROMPF? >>> A: It is a static analysis feature which generates an additional file >>> (.anl) during compilation. There is a lot of code in LNO to maintain >>> related information in WHIRL, but I don't think it is used to make any >>> changes during compilation. I believe the expectation was that >>> another tool would be used to interpret the analysis file... maybe >>> someone from the SGI days can clarify. >> >> PathScale in the coming months may make an external tool which can read the >> .anl files. I believe UH also had a project that could read it, but I'm not >> sure the status. We're happy to work with the community on improving this >> functionality and documenting any changes we make to the .anl format >> >>> >>> Q: Why does the patch remove the Whirl Browser? >>> A: It does not. It only removes the WB code related to PROMPF. >>> >>> Q: Why not maintain or improve this functionality? >>> A: The patch is based on the assumption that no one is using this >>> feature because BUILD_SKIP_PROMPF has always been defined for all >>> targets in Open64. I tried to build a compiler with PROMPF support on >>> x86 and the feature didn't work, because no prompf_anl.so is created >>> and copied to the installation directory, further convincing me that >>> no one is using the feature. >> >> It should be fairly trivial to get this building. >> ----------------------- >> TBH I'd support removal of this code since >> 1) I think this functionality can be improved and the current state may not >> be the best place to start >> 2) Unless the Open64 community is willing to develop their own or >> collaborate with others you're not guaranteed to be able to use the external >> tools > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Try before you buy = See our experts in action! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Open64-devel mailing list > Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 _______________________________________________ Open64-devel mailing list Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
