public inbox for fortran@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andre Vehreschild <vehre@gmx.de>
To: Mikael Morin <morin-mikael@orange.fr>
Cc: "Damian Rouson" <damian@archaeologic.codes>,
	"Thomas Koenig" <tkoenig@netcologne.de>,
	"Benson Muite" <benson_muite@emailplus.org>,
	"Jerry D" <jvdelisle2@gmail.com>,
	"Paul Richard Thomas" <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com>,
	GCC-Fortran-ML <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>,
	"Lexi Pimenidis" <lexi@badgersystems.de>,
	"Nicolas König" <koenigni@student.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: Possible funding of gfortran work
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:28:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230614102812.593b558d@vepi2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <74690341-bde3-47f2-8750-26a05578668d@orange.fr>

Hi Mikael,

please find my answers inline.

> > I understand. I would have been happy in the past when a client had as much
> > knowledge and structure than we already have. Under "Project goal" we now
> > have about 300 words. So we could add more.
> Well, It wouldn't be really part of the goal, more how to reach that
> goal.  The "timeframe" question is possibly where it should go.  Or if
> you consider that the planning is a goal itself, it could be put here.

The timeframe question accepts only a number. I.e. we can't plan there.

> > What do you have in mind?
> Something that breaks a big, risky thing to a set of smaller, manageable
> ones.  Something showing that the main problems (or some of them at
> least) have been identified and that we have a path to solve them one by
> one.
>
> > Like adding
> > more bullet points to each item in the form of:
> >    - rebase existing implementation to current master
> >    - identify missing requirements
> >    - add tests for missing requirements
> >    - implement missing requirements to pass tests.
> >    ...
> Well, this is a bit too general to be useful.

Mhh, I don't suppose that the planning will be evaluated by software
specialist. I therefore propose not to be too technical, but to stay on a
project manager level. So how about we enumerate the bullets so that we then
can put a project/milestone structure under each one like this (PD: person day):

1.M1 assess open issues and refine planning (1-3 PDs)
1.M2 rebase to current master and adapt to recent changes in gfortran (1-3 PDs)
1.M3 identify missing requirements ... I need input here from Nicolas as I
don't have an overview of what is needed. Therefore I am quite general.

>
> > Or are your targeting a more time based approach like:
> >    Milestone 1: shared mem coarrays merge to master in week 2 of project
> >    Milestone 2: finish research on general way for doing remote coarray
> > access in alien structures to finish in week 1 of project
> >    ...
> Maybe, but I would not emphasize the time constraints that much.

I understand. But for our own planning we need a rough estimate. Therefore
putting numbers to each milestone, will help a lot in planning.

> I have done it below for the scalarizer simplification, which is what
> for which the picture is the most clear in my mind regarding what to do
> and how to do it.
> Here it is, with the expected number of weeks (that's 3 days for me) to
> do it:
>   - Add optional scalarization block. (1 week)
>   - Setup multiple expression usage (in case of multiple loops) in a
> more clear way. (3 weeks)
>   - Move array and loop bounds setup to an opaque "start scalarization"
> function (3 weeks)
>   - Make scalarization independant on previous setup of array
> information and move setup code from "start scalarization" to "finish
> scalarization" (5 weeks)
>   - Initialize array information inside the gfc_conv_expr* functions and
> remove preliminary walking of expressions (4 weeks)
>
> I hope that's not too technical to be put in the application form.

:-) Removing technical speech is not the problem... But I like the plan
although I wouldn't know what to do in each case.

> > Mikael Morin @ ??? -- Maintained/Contributed to the scalarizer. Experienced
> > in gfortran development and component dependencies.
> >
> I'm not affiliated to any company, university or organization.  Just
> myself. :-)

Sorry, I did not mean any insult. What do you prefer? "not affiliated" or
"private", ...?

Regards,
	Andre

--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de

  reply	other threads:[~2023-06-14  8:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-26  4:34 Jerry DeLisle
2023-05-26 17:09 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-05-26 21:22 ` Jerry D
2023-05-27  8:08   ` Thomas Koenig
2023-05-27 11:24     ` Andre Vehreschild
2023-05-27 16:19       ` Paul Richard Thomas
2023-05-28 14:26         ` Nicolas König
2023-05-28 15:07         ` Thomas Koenig
2023-05-28 19:25         ` Mikael Morin
2023-05-28 20:53           ` Jerry D
2023-05-30 13:32             ` Andre Vehreschild
2023-05-30 20:08               ` Thomas Koenig
2023-05-31  3:46                 ` Benson Muite
2023-05-31  6:08                   ` Thomas Koenig
2023-05-31  8:42                     ` Benson Muite
2023-05-31 12:23                     ` Andre Vehreschild
2023-05-31 14:08                       ` Damian Rouson
2023-06-01  9:18                         ` Andre Vehreschild
2023-06-01 10:56                           ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-06-01 10:59                           ` Mikael Morin
2023-06-04  8:23                             ` Thomas Koenig
2023-06-05  8:08                             ` Andre Vehreschild
2023-06-05 11:44                               ` Mikael Morin
2023-06-06 13:06                                 ` Andre Vehreschild
2023-06-08 12:38                                   ` Mikael Morin
2023-06-14  8:28                                     ` Andre Vehreschild [this message]
2023-06-14  9:40                                       ` Mikael Morin
2023-06-14 18:48                                         ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-06-01 11:12                           ` Benson Muite
2023-06-04  7:49                             ` Thomas Koenig
2023-06-05 10:12                               ` Andre Vehreschild
2023-06-05 10:07                             ` Andre Vehreschild
2023-06-05 12:16                               ` Thomas Koenig
2023-06-05 12:21                                 ` Andre Vehreschild
2023-06-08  5:34                               ` Benson Muite
2023-06-14  8:00                                 ` Andre Vehreschild
2023-06-02  0:53                           ` Jerry D
2023-06-05 10:09                             ` Andre Vehreschild

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20230614102812.593b558d@vepi2 \
    --to=vehre@gmx.de \
    --cc=benson_muite@emailplus.org \
    --cc=damian@archaeologic.codes \
    --cc=fortran@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jvdelisle2@gmail.com \
    --cc=koenigni@student.ethz.ch \
    --cc=lexi@badgersystems.de \
    --cc=morin-mikael@orange.fr \
    --cc=paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com \
    --cc=tkoenig@netcologne.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).