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). Gr. Steven
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? Thanks, -mike -- Michael McCracken UCSD CSE PhD Candidate research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/ misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/
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/
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote:>> 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.I think that any porting work you do now will still be valuable in the future... so it's not wasted effort. I don't know how useful 4.0.1 will be though.> What are the plans for moving to a newer gcc for the llvm branch? I > suspect it isn't planned too soon, right?Not soon. We are likely to skip 4.1 and go right to 4.2, but 4.2 has to get more solid first.> 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...No idea, but that sounds like a pretty big change. It may be simpler (or comperable) to merge the LLVM changes into 4.1. I'm personally not interested in doing the work, but if you wanted to tackle it I'd be happy to answer questions that arise from it if I can. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/