Talk:Open64

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Open64 article says that there are many branches but only mentions a few. I was looking for which branch compiles for the x86 architecture, but such a branch is not even mentioned, even though the first paragraph seems to indicate such a branch exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.3.120 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the x86/x64 branch was merged into the mainline quite a while ago. However, you should check on the mailing list instead of asking for the details here. Raysonho (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMD has a relation to Open64 too, they are even shipping a bit newer version than listed on the SF page --92.224.196.34 (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open64 Branches

In reference to commits by user 58.8.60.38: Pro64 was renamed to Open64 in 2001. The branches are important because they refer to the same compiler with simply a new name. Moreover, the svn commit log is incomplete because it was moved from sourceforge so you can't use that as a reference for release date. See this link from 2001 which shows Open64 was around in 2001. There's an announcement of the first official release under the name Open64 here in 2002 (it is version 0.14 because the numbering convention continues from the last release 0.13 under the Pro64 name).

Furthermore, if the information regarding Tilera/Tensilica/Qlogic/PathScale is inaccurate please fix it and don't just delete it. I myself don't see incorrect information (if poorly written). This Thesis has some of the history of open64 as well as a timeline if you need more information or anyone needs citations to fix the article with.

snaphat (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Just because Juergen put it in his thesis doesn't make it fact. Does he cite a reference to the source of this information or is it just hearsay? You should email him for clarification because I suspect there are factual errors. 2) Deleting wholly wrong information is imho the correct fix. Poorly written or not do what you want about Tilera and Tensilica, but I'm removing references to Qlogic/PathScale. People at these companies work hard and don't appreciate it. 3) This article is about Open64 and not Pro64. Check the relatively recent mailing list references from one of the founders (Sun Chan) explained it came after ORC with regards to timeline 4) These "branches" if diff'ed would be larger than the original source. It would be like saying Sun Compiler or Cray's compiler environment, which uses an ancestor of the same Cray Fortran front-end, is a "branch". It's misleading and in some ways disparaging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.59.230 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to thank you for discussing this on the talk page. I am going to respond to each of your numbered points one by one below:

Juergen states his sources as follows: "The figure is based on private slides from Fred Chow and additional information from Shin-Ming Liu and Sun Chan." My understanding is that Juergen worked with pathscale during this period of time. Part of the information is co-verifiable via the sourceforge message archives which I linked above. Moreover, what is your reasoning for saying this information is incorrect? A few months ago, you incorrectly switched the release date of Open64 to 2005-2006. Following this, I had a discussion with Juergen, and he provided sources that give the correct release dates. I am not sure what you are looking for here, but Juergen provided two of the sources above and cites his sources for the historical information and timeline in his thesis. This isn't ideal given that we would like to have many other sources doing the same, but it is enough to keep the information.
You haven't shown that this information is wrong. On the contrary we have sources that say the opposite. You have in the past before and are now electing to remove only part of the information that you call incorrect here which makes it seem as if you have some sort of pro pathscale agenda here. Why don't you care about Tilera and Tensilica? Whether or not the people at the companies appreciate the information is isn't relevant. Wikipedia's purpose isn't to censor or remove information because people or companies don't like it. Your edits so far have only attempted to remove information that relates Open64 <--> Pathscale in both the Open64 and Pathscale articles. See WP:CENSOR.
I stated above that Open64 is just a rename of Pro64. SGI released it as Pro64 under GPL in 2000. Around a year later SGI dropped support and UD took control and renamed it Open64. Simply because branches were made in 2000, prior to the name change, does not make it a different compiler. Can you provide the mailing list references from Sun Chan so that we can improve the article? They would be a great addition to what we already have. Sun Chan is actually one of the sources for the information in Juergen's thesis. Moreover, my understanding of ORC is that it was from 2001-2004 and branched from Open64 directly (after the renaming).
That may or may not be true, but even so that doesn't mean relevant history should be deleted. The difference in wording would be something like 'branch' vs 'based off of'. In both cases, Pathscale and Path64 is still mentioned.

snaphat ► 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]