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