On 11/05/18 10:26, Richard Biener wrote:
Sounds good but I'd not do 1. given the github repo can serve as archiving
point, too. Having 2. doesn't sound too useful over 3. so in the end I'd
do only 3. and 4. Of course 1 and 2 might help you in doing 3 and 4.
Indeed, I've been worried that I'm basically planning to expose internal
steps.
The problem I'm trying to solve with 2 is that what I need is 3, but
that means code dependencies on things I don't own, which makes it
harder to get to 4.
The other thing that's occurred to me is that with og8 being new, maybe
it's a good time to merge the GCN stuff into that, and work with the
NVidia folks to share it. [Adding Cesar and Thomas to CC.] I'm aware of
some incompatibilities with og7, but those are going to need fixing
either way.
Here's another proposal.
trunk
|\
| gcc-7-branch
| |\
| : gcn-gcc-7-branch (1 - possibly notional)
| \
|\ |
| gcc-8-branch |
| |\ /
| | gcn-gcc-8-branch (2. trunk compatible)
| | | '----------------------------.
| |\ | |
| : openacc-gcc-8-branch (3. share existing) |
| |
|\ ,------------------------------------------'
| gcn (4. temporary)
|/
gcc-9
Obviously, the description "trunk compatible" would become less true
over time, but it will be less diverged than og8. I suppose this branch
could also be notional, only named internally, though?
I guess it makes no difference to me -- I'm going to have to go through
all the steps anyway -- but it depends how transparent others would like
me to be.
Andrew
