On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 08:23, Jack Howarth <howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:55:09PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2...@12:40 AM, Jack Howarth <howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: >> > Sebastian, >> > It appears that the official tarballs are now >> > pos...@http://www.cloog.org/ >> > for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan on placing those both in the >> > infrastructure >> > direct...@gcc.gnu.org's ftp site? If so, the newer ppl 0.11 tarball should >> > be added >> > as well. If those files are updated, we should be set to switch gcc trunk >> > to require >> > ppl >= 0.11, cloog >= 0.16 and the default cloog backend from legacy >> > cloog-ppl to >> > cloog-isl. >> >> I don't think this is a very good i...@this point. > > Richard, > How about for gcc 4.6.1? It seems a shame to push the conversion to > cloog.org > in graphite to the next release. Hopefully enough of the remaining loop and > vectorization issues with graphite can be ironed out by gcc 4.7 such that > defaulting > -fgraphite-identity for -O2 might finally be considered.
I tend to agree with Richard here: what about keeping cloog-ppl as the default for gcc4.6 and let people try cloog.org 0.16.x. IMO it's just safer this way as the majority of tests we did is based on cloog-ppl, not cloog.org. Sebastian
