missing polly 3.2 branch?

Tobi,
   It appears that a polly 3.2 branch wasn't created last night. Shouldn't there be
one now that polly is part of the llvm 3.2 release?
         Jack

Hi Pawel,

Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.).

-bw

Bill,

Hi Pawel,

Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.).

Sure.

But I do not know much about polly so 'polly' guys please fill me on
the details. For the 3.2 release I will need:

- to know how to build it
seems to be covered here http://polly.llvm.org/get_started.html
but any hints/comments/scripts would be very helpful

- how to do the acceptance test and criteria for go/no-go
is the make polly-test enough?
or we need to run more extensive tests like PolyBench?
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/

- polly release notes for the 3.2 release

-bw

Pawel

Bill,

Hi Pawel,

Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.).

Sure.

But I do not know much about polly so 'polly' guys please fill me on
the details. For the 3.2 release I will need:

- to know how to build it
seems to be covered here http://polly.llvm.org/get_started.html
but any hints/comments/scripts would be very helpful

- how to do the acceptance test and criteria for go/no-go
is the make polly-test enough?
or we need to run more extensive tests like PolyBench?
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/

I apologize as I haven't seen previous mails about this topic.

I think its fine to create the branch, and the polly team do their thing, but it will not be a part of the official LLVM 3.2 release process unless it is discussed in detail and decided by the LLVM Release team. Therefore, bugs in polly are not release blockers and I do not think its Pawel's job to qualify it.

Thanks,
Tanya

> Bill,
>
>> Hi Pawel,
>>
>> Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.).
>
> Sure.
>
> But I do not know much about polly so 'polly' guys please fill me on
> the details. For the 3.2 release I will need:
>
> - to know how to build it
> seems to be covered here http://polly.llvm.org/get_started.html
> but any hints/comments/scripts would be very helpful
>
> - how to do the acceptance test and criteria for go/no-go
> is the make polly-test enough?
> or we need to run more extensive tests like PolyBench?
> http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/
>

I apologize as I haven't seen previous mails about this topic.

I think its fine to create the branch, and the polly team do their thing, but it will not be a part of the official LLVM 3.2 release process unless it is discussed in detail and decided by the LLVM Release team. Therefore, bugs in polly are not release blockers and I do not think its Pawel's job to qualify it.

There are no testsuite failures with 'make polly-test' on x86_64 darwin. It would be nice though
if the toplevel 'make check-all' could be extended to execute 'make polly-test' in polly/test
if it exists in the tools subdirectory.
           Jack