Re: [Gomp-discuss] CVS organization

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Diego Novillo wrote:
> > If anyone has any problem with this policy, we better discuss it now.
>
> Well, no real preference one way or the other.  After all gfortran
> started on a separate repository.  The one advantage I see in starting
> directly on gcc.gnu.org is that you get immediate exposure to the GCC
> development community.  That doesn't happen while you're on SF.

True, but -- if I recall -- when we first started this project, tree-ssa 
was still up for debate in some circles, and there was resistance to 
adding GOMP as a branch of a branch, so to speak.

Given that tree-ssa is being merged into mainline, perhaps it *is* time 
to consider hosting GOMP at gcc.gnu.org. But...

One reason we decided to go with a platform-neutral design was for 
acceptance into GCC; if memory serves, we rejected the Linux-specific 
implementation because it would not be broad enough for acceptance into 
by the broader GCC community.

Also, a generic approach pushed us toward a pthreads approach, as 
opposed to platform-specific Linux Native Threads. If we're going 
pthreads for portability, the perhaps we should stay with the generic 
design.

Which is why I think we need a *design* document before we jump into 
copding, plans of action, organizing CVS and what-not. And as such, I've 
been working on expanding and completing the original design document, 
based on our original generic approach.

I have no problem with revisiting our earlier decisions, but we should 
do so now, before we have a design -- and the design should proceed any 
implementation work.

--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing