> Didn't you see Hal's reply?Hi Chris, Given that the email is *exactly* the same as yesterday’s I’d rather bet on a technical reason here. So probably no intention by Joshua ;-) Regards Jonas From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of C Bergström via llvm-dev Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:27 AM To: Joshua Cranmer <cranmer2 at illinois.edu> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LLVM Fortran front-end Didn't you see Hal's reply? He keeps saying that they will announce something. I expect it will likely be timed around ISC17 or SC17 if it will be this year. Frankly I'm more than disappointed about the lack of transparency. Hal talked about people having concerns over how "open source" Intel was about their OMP runtime, but this is way beyond that. A **** press release and no code for over a year?! Is that *really* how the open source process works? All that did was derail legitimate efforts on a real Flang.>From the slides I've seen there's going to be a "PGI IR" between "Flang" and llvm ir I guess. If that's really the case then I'm curious if this is using a similar approach to what others have publicly worked already.btw if you zoom in on the rather useless slides that are floating around - you'd see that ThePortlandGroup/Flang github project was showing little recent activity. I'll let others get their tinfoil hats to speculate further.. On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Joshua Cranmer via llvm-dev < <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: Is anyone aware of what the status of the LLVM PGI Fortran front-end is? The last I've seen any information on this mailing list is about a year ago, and the original mailing list message suggested that it would be made public in late 2016. -- Joshua Cranmer Source code archæologist _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170518/87083d17/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5792 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170518/87083d17/attachment.bin>
On 5/18/17 2:10 AM, Hahnfeld, Jonas via llvm-dev wrote:> > >Didn't you see Hal's reply? > > Hi Chris, > > Given that the email is **exactly** the same as yesterday’s I’d rather > bet on a technical reason here. > > So probably no intention by Joshua ;-) >That bet is correct: I have several email addresses, and I originally sent the message from one of them not on the mailing list, which means it got stuck in the moderator queue. When it didn't get accepted for moderation, I figured that no one was looking at them, so I resent the message from the one that is subscribed to the mailing list. Apparently, the moderator never checked to see if the first message was a duplicate of the one that made it through, as the original message did make it to the list after the second message had gotten a reply. -- Joshua Cranmer Thunderbird and DXR developer Source code archæologist -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170518/9f13fd95/attachment.html>
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: ...> That bet is correct: I have several email addresses, and I originally sent > the message from one of them not on the mailing list, which means it got > stuck in the moderator queue. When it didn't get accepted for moderation, I > figured that no one was looking at them, so I resent the message from the > one that is subscribed to the mailing list. Apparently, the moderator never > checked to see if the first message was a duplicate of the one that made it > through, as the original message did make it to the list after the second > message had gotten a reply.Hey Joshua, Would you please send me the moderation email off-list so that I can look into this issue. I do not see a record of your message being held for moderation. Thanks, Cam