[Gomp-discuss] FW: Open Research Compiler

[Scott Robert Ladd]

I received the attached e-mail this morning, and thought it might be of
academic interest to this group.

..Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barak Zalstein [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 08:59
> To: Scott Robert Ladd
> Subject: RE: OpenMP, HPC, and the future of GCC
>
>
> Note that GCC inadequate number-crunching support is exactly the
> reason why
> DSP companies who are shopping for an open-source compiler, are
> currently driven to
> choose ORC (http://ipf-orc.sourceforge.net/) over GCC.
> (unfortunately I can't advocate this open source compiler in GCC
> mailing list anymore,
> as I will most definitely be ignored as a troll).
>
> Barak.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Robert Ladd [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 3:01 PM
> > To: gcc List; address@hidden
> > Cc: Per Bothner
> > Subject: OpenMP, HPC, and the future of GCC
> >
> >
> > Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > Fact is that GCC is not a high-performance compiler for numerical
> > > applications: It does not do autovectorizing, and it's not easy to
> > > create parallel programs, etc.  Result is that when I
> > compile a simple
> > > 1D Riemann solver with Intel C++, it runs more than twice
> > as fast on my
> > > dual-P4 compared with GCC.  Differences: Vectorizing compiler with
> > > OpenMP support.
> >
> > I am of the opinion that gcc needs a "high performance
> > computing" initiative
> > to address the constellation of issues that surround
> > numerical and "super"
> > computer applications.
> >
> > If gcc wishes to address the needs of programmers in science and
> > engineering, we need to look at the entire constellation of features
> > required. That includes autovectorization, OpenMP, possibly
> > auto-parallelization, complete C99 support, Fortran 95, and
> > maybe a GNU-MPI
> > or GNU-PVM implementation. All these pieces come together to
> > provide a set
> > of tools for numerical work -- and the lack of individual components
> > (autovectorization, for example) undermines the effectiveness
> > of gcc as a
> > whole in such applications.
> >
> > > Maybe one of the reasons for this is because people involved in GCC
> > > development mostly are computer scientists, and that such
> > people are not
> > > well known for understanding computational scientists?
> >
> > Gcc is biased toward the needs of the GNU Project: writing
> > command-line
> > tools and operating systems. Computational science simply
> > hasn't entered the
> > picture as a primary player; most scientists of my
> > acquaintance use gcc
> > because it is free-as-in-beer (especially true when it comes
> > to g77). I
> > don't know anyone who advocates gcc as the most effective
> > tool for numerical
> > work.
> >
> > People should be aware that numerical applications transcend
> > scientific
> > work. Some of the number-crunching code in my life has been
> > in the financial
> > industry -- code that designs real-time portfolios, for
> > example, based on
> > historical data analysis and user-supplied criteria and boundaries.
> >
> > > And those numerical experts saw a trend: Everybody goes
> > multi-processor!
> > > So they identified a *need* for an easy-to-use interface to create
> > > explicitly parallel software for people who are not computer
> > > scientists.  OpenMP was born, and is now widely used and well
> > > established.
> > >
> > > If GCC does not want to be useful in a hpc environment, that's fine.
> > > But I would like to hear that *before* we start an effort
> > to implement
> > > OpenMP in GCC.  If the GCC community has an attitude like,
> > "just put it
> > > in a branch and we'll see what we do with it," then I can
> > think of more
> > > important things that I actually should put time in.
> >
> > I agree. Good words.
> >
> > Is GNU interested in supporting the HPC community? There are
> > those of us
> > willing to put in the work if there is reasonable expectation
> > that the gcc
> > "core" will accept it. But if HPC is going to be dismissed
> > automatically, I
> > don't see the point of making an effort to implement HPC features.
> >
> > One purported goal of the GNU Project is to provide free
> > alternatives to
> > commercial products. Is GCC willing to surrender HPC to
> > commercial compiler
> > vendors?
> >
> > ..Scott
> >
> > --
> > Scott Robert Ladd
> > Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
> > Professional programming for science and engineering;
> > Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.
> >
> >
> >
>