On 9/9/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote:> On 9/9/06, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/9/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > You wrote: > > > >> The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with gfortran at > > > >> all, > > > > Actually, the entire suite compiles flawlessly with gfortran. > > > > See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranResults > > > > > > Was that true of GCC 4.0.1? > > > > No, gfortran in gcc 4.0 is, ehm, highly experimental (read: a piece of > > junk). Gfortran in gcc 4.1 was the first one that worked for NIST (and > > for SPEC). > > Hm. I had noticed a bunch of changes in the current sources, but had > hoped 4.0.1 wasn't too far behind. This is discouraging. > > So, it sounds like it might be a waste of effort to work on the 4.0.1 > llvm-gfortran. > What are the plans for moving to a newer gcc for the llvm branch? I > suspect it isn't planned too soon, right? > > What about just updating the fortran-related sources in the llvm > branch to their current state in gcc svn and going from there, does > anyone have a good idea how difficult that would be? From my limited > experience, it seems like the interface between gfortran and the rest > of the gcc tree doesn't need to change much. > I'm not clear on how hard that would be to manage merging later, but I > would like to be able to keep moving on this without running over old > bugs... > > Any ideas from those more familiar with the situation?I'm actually trying this while I wait for some other things to complete, but as it stands, it seems like a bad idea. It certainly seems more complicated than just dropping in new sources. What I did was simply to copy over the libgfortran/ and gcc/fortran/ directories from the GCC SVN (4.2) from last friday into an llvm-gcc tree, re-apply my changes from the previous patches, and try compiling. What I got was a bunch of link errors in gtype-desc.c, and I'm not sure I want to make any changes outside of the gfortran subdirs, since that would make merging changes back in a real pain. Am I missing another option, or am I out of luck until llvm-gcc updates to 4.1? Thanks, -mike -- Michael McCracken UCSD CSE PhD Candidate research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/ misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/
Another option might be g95 instead of gfortran. I haven't used it for a while, but I seem to recall it working fine in gcc 4.0.1. On 9/11/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote:> On 9/9/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/9/06, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9/9/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > > You wrote: > > > > >> The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with gfortran at > > > > >> all, > > > > > Actually, the entire suite compiles flawlessly with gfortran. > > > > > See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranResults > > > > > > > > Was that true of GCC 4.0.1? > > > > > > No, gfortran in gcc 4.0 is, ehm, highly experimental (read: a piece of > > > junk). Gfortran in gcc 4.1 was the first one that worked for NIST (and > > > for SPEC). > > > > Hm. I had noticed a bunch of changes in the current sources, but had > > hoped 4.0.1 wasn't too far behind. This is discouraging. > > > > So, it sounds like it might be a waste of effort to work on the 4.0.1 > > llvm-gfortran. > > What are the plans for moving to a newer gcc for the llvm branch? I > > suspect it isn't planned too soon, right? > > > > What about just updating the fortran-related sources in the llvm > > branch to their current state in gcc svn and going from there, does > > anyone have a good idea how difficult that would be? From my limited > > experience, it seems like the interface between gfortran and the rest > > of the gcc tree doesn't need to change much. > > I'm not clear on how hard that would be to manage merging later, but I > > would like to be able to keep moving on this without running over old > > bugs... > > > > Any ideas from those more familiar with the situation? > > I'm actually trying this while I wait for some other things to > complete, but as it stands, it seems like a bad idea. It certainly > seems more complicated than just dropping in new sources. > > What I did was simply to copy over the libgfortran/ and gcc/fortran/ > directories from the GCC SVN (4.2) from last friday into an llvm-gcc > tree, re-apply my changes from the previous patches, and try > compiling. > > What I got was a bunch of link errors in gtype-desc.c, and I'm not > sure I want to make any changes outside of the gfortran subdirs, since > that would make merging changes back in a real pain. > > Am I missing another option, or am I out of luck until llvm-gcc updates to 4.1? > > Thanks, > -mike > > -- > Michael McCracken > UCSD CSE PhD Candidate > research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/ > misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/ > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
I'm specifically interested in compiling fortran to LLVM, so I expect that the changes necessary to get g95 to output LLVM would be prohibitive. I'm not 100% familiar with the situation, but g95 is apparently a one-man project and is not part of gcc, while gfortran was forked from g95 at some point and is officially part of gcc. At least for my purposes, g95 is a non-starter. Thanks, -mike On 9/11/06, Ryan Brown <ribrdb at google.com> wrote:> Another option might be g95 instead of gfortran. I haven't used it for > a while, but I seem to recall it working fine in gcc 4.0.1. > > On 9/11/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/9/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9/9/06, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 9/9/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > > >> The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with gfortran at > > > > > >> all, > > > > > > Actually, the entire suite compiles flawlessly with gfortran. > > > > > > See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranResults > > > > > > > > > > Was that true of GCC 4.0.1? > > > > > > > > No, gfortran in gcc 4.0 is, ehm, highly experimental (read: a piece of > > > > junk). Gfortran in gcc 4.1 was the first one that worked for NIST (and > > > > for SPEC). > > > > > > Hm. I had noticed a bunch of changes in the current sources, but had > > > hoped 4.0.1 wasn't too far behind. This is discouraging. > > > > > > So, it sounds like it might be a waste of effort to work on the 4.0.1 > > > llvm-gfortran. > > > What are the plans for moving to a newer gcc for the llvm branch? I > > > suspect it isn't planned too soon, right? > > > > > > What about just updating the fortran-related sources in the llvm > > > branch to their current state in gcc svn and going from there, does > > > anyone have a good idea how difficult that would be? From my limited > > > experience, it seems like the interface between gfortran and the rest > > > of the gcc tree doesn't need to change much. > > > I'm not clear on how hard that would be to manage merging later, but I > > > would like to be able to keep moving on this without running over old > > > bugs... > > > > > > Any ideas from those more familiar with the situation? > > > > I'm actually trying this while I wait for some other things to > > complete, but as it stands, it seems like a bad idea. It certainly > > seems more complicated than just dropping in new sources. > > > > What I did was simply to copy over the libgfortran/ and gcc/fortran/ > > directories from the GCC SVN (4.2) from last friday into an llvm-gcc > > tree, re-apply my changes from the previous patches, and try > > compiling. > > > > What I got was a bunch of link errors in gtype-desc.c, and I'm not > > sure I want to make any changes outside of the gfortran subdirs, since > > that would make merging changes back in a real pain. > > > > Am I missing another option, or am I out of luck until llvm-gcc updates to 4.1? > > > > Thanks, > > -mike > > > > -- > > Michael McCracken > > UCSD CSE PhD Candidate > > research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/ > > misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/ > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- Michael McCracken UCSD CSE PhD Candidate research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/ misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/