On 4/30/19 9:33 AM, David Greene via llvm-dev wrote:> "fortran" seems far too generic to me. What distinguishes it from a > different Fortran compiler? > > What about "flange" (Fortran language environment)? It's distinct from > the already-in-use-by-two-projects "flang" yet fits in with the existing > "clang" naming scheme. Plus it captures the fact that the Fortran > runtime is a rather large piece of work.I think that we should call the project flang and the name of the drive should also be flang. With all due respect to the other projects called flang, and I've been involved in at least two of them, the goal has always been to have an upstream fortran compiler called flang, and if this is our upstream fortran compiler, it should be called flang. The fact that the Clang mailing list is called cfe-dev, etc. instead of clang-dev, etc. is confusing to those outside of the community. I think that we should not repeat that kind of difference, and we should name the mailing lists, directories, etc. based on "flang" as well. Thanks again, Hal> > -David > > Stephen Scalpone via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > >> On 4/10/19, 12:15 PM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Chris Lattner via llvm-dev" wrote: >> >>> The foundation recommends considering a new name for the project (e.g. flang or simply fortran) >>> to be more accessible and obvious for new contributors - in addition to being the repository name, >>> it will also be the base stem for mailing lists and other project related material. The f18 folks can >>> discuss this, come up with a decision, and work with the llvm-admin team to set up the requisite infra. >> >> >> We'd like to recommend "fortran" as the name of the source repository, mailing list (fortran-dev), and the C++ namespace. The source code is all about Fortran so >> people working on the compiler and tools will be thinking fortran first and foremost. >> >> >> >> As for the driver, time will tell. I expect the f18 developers at Arm will post an RFC asking for advice about how to write the driver. Base it on clang or start fresh? >> Extract the clang driver into its own project? Name it flang? But that's another RFC. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance for your feedback, >> >> >> >> - Steve >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or >> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev-- Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory
"Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:> On 4/30/19 9:33 AM, David Greene via llvm-dev wrote: >> "fortran" seems far too generic to me. What distinguishes it from a >> different Fortran compiler? >> >> What about "flange" (Fortran language environment)? It's distinct from >> the already-in-use-by-two-projects "flang" yet fits in with the existing >> "clang" naming scheme. Plus it captures the fact that the Fortran >> runtime is a rather large piece of work. > > > I think that we should call the project flang and the name of the drive > should also be flang. With all due respect to the other projects called > flang, and I've been involved in at least two of them, the goal has > always been to have an upstream fortran compiler called flang, and if > this is our upstream fortran compiler, it should be called flang. > > The fact that the Clang mailing list is called cfe-dev, etc. instead of > clang-dev, etc. is confusing to those outside of the community. I think > that we should not repeat that kind of difference, and we should name > the mailing lists, directories, etc. based on "flang" as well.+100 I only suggested a different name because I assumed a different name was desired. -David
> On Apr 30, 2019, at 2:02 PM, David Greene via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > "Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > >> On 4/30/19 9:33 AM, David Greene via llvm-dev wrote: >>> "fortran" seems far too generic to me. What distinguishes it from a >>> different Fortran compiler? >>> >>> What about "flange" (Fortran language environment)? It's distinct from >>> the already-in-use-by-two-projects "flang" yet fits in with the existing >>> "clang" naming scheme. Plus it captures the fact that the Fortran >>> runtime is a rather large piece of work. >> >> >> I think that we should call the project flang and the name of the drive >> should also be flang. With all due respect to the other projects called >> flang, and I've been involved in at least two of them, the goal has >> always been to have an upstream fortran compiler called flang, and if >> this is our upstream fortran compiler, it should be called flang. >> >> The fact that the Clang mailing list is called cfe-dev, etc. instead of >> clang-dev, etc. is confusing to those outside of the community. I think >> that we should not repeat that kind of difference, and we should name >> the mailing lists, directories, etc. based on "flang" as well. > > +100 > > I only suggested a different name because I assumed a different name was > desired.My opinion should be weighted weakly here, but I am also +1 on “flang”. I completely agree with Hal that the cfg-dev vs clang-dev naming thing was a mistake, and hopefully the cfe repo will get renamed to clang as well with the GitHub move. -Chris
So "flang" it is. I'll ask the llvm-admin team to create a
flang-dev mailing list and the required repos and directories for tools/flang.
Thanks everyone for your feedback.
- Steve
On 4/30/19, 2:02 PM, "llvm-dev on behalf of David Greene via
llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
"Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
writes:
> On 4/30/19 9:33 AM, David Greene via llvm-dev wrote:
>> "fortran" seems far too generic to me. What
distinguishes it from a
>> different Fortran compiler?
>>
>> What about "flange" (Fortran language environment)?
It's distinct from
>> the already-in-use-by-two-projects "flang" yet fits in
with the existing
>> "clang" naming scheme. Plus it captures the fact that
the Fortran
>> runtime is a rather large piece of work.
>
>
> I think that we should call the project flang and the name of the drive
> should also be flang. With all due respect to the other projects called
> flang, and I've been involved in at least two of them, the goal has
> always been to have an upstream fortran compiler called flang, and if
> this is our upstream fortran compiler, it should be called flang.
>
> The fact that the Clang mailing list is called cfe-dev, etc. instead of
> clang-dev, etc. is confusing to those outside of the community. I think
> that we should not repeat that kind of difference, and we should name
> the mailing lists, directories, etc. based on "flang" as
well.
+100
I only suggested a different name because I assumed a different name was
desired.
-David
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain
confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------