search for: bosscher

Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "bosscher".

2006 Sep 09
3
[LLVMdev] gfortran calling convention
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?...
2006 Sep 11
2
[LLVMdev] gfortran calling convention
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 &...
2006 Sep 10
0
[LLVMdev] gfortran calling convention
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 > > >> al...
2006 Sep 11
0
[LLVMdev] gfortran calling convention
...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 compatibl...
2006 Aug 31
3
[LLVMdev] gfortran
...impression that it would require a "complete rewrite of the gfortran backend" [1]. Now, I probably misinterpreted that exchange, but it was the only public record I could find of discussion about using LLVM and gfortran. What's the difference between how it works now and what Steven Bosscher was saying would be a huge job? Also, is there any rough idea of how far from working it might be - I note that there's considerable room for interpretation in the phrasing of "See what works and what doesn't, debug, fix, submit patch, repeat." :) The reason I'm asking is th...
2006 Sep 09
2
[LLVMdev] gfortran calling convention
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 Gr. Steven
2006 Sep 09
0
[LLVMdev] gfortran calling convention
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? -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sa...
2006 Aug 31
0
[LLVMdev] gfortran
...it would require a "complete rewrite of the gfortran backend" [1]. Now, > I probably misinterpreted that exchange, but it was the only public > record I could find of discussion about using LLVM and gfortran. What's > the difference between how it works now and what Steven Bosscher was > saying would be a huge job? This comment meant that a "complete rewrite" was needed to go from GFortran AST's directly to LLVM, without going through GENERIC/GIMPLE. If you use GENERIC/GIMPLE (as we currently do) it should be straight-forward. > Also, is there any ro...
2004 Aug 29
1
[LLVMdev] Is anyone working on an AMD64 port?
Hi, Is anyone working on an AMD64 backend for LLVM? I'd like to see it have one and if nobody's working on it yet, I might try to get a few people together to work on it a bit. Gr. Steven