search for: flang

Hal, Eric, Johannes, David and Peter, I lead the development of OpenMP for AMD GPUs and work with others at AMD who support OpenMP on AMD CPUs. On behalf of our development teams, we greatly appreciate your efforts to move the development of flang into a subproject in the llvm-project repository and to integrate this development effort into the overall LLVM development community. Like most commercial companies, we have certain procedures (some legal) to participate in open source projects. Since AMD has already engaged in LLVM development,...

For those of us not familiar with clang internals, it would be helpful if you could describe the parts of clang that you're considering sharing and explain what existing code they would replace in flang (if any) and what benefits we gain by sharing them. In particular, these were mentioned previously: DiagnosticsEngine, SourceManager, SourceLocation, FileManager, VFS Thanks, Tim On 6/12/20, 3:25 AM, "flang-dev on behalf of Andrzej Warzynski via flang-dev" <flang-dev-bounces at lis...

...ng changes to start talking about merging F18 into LLVM. The live status is tracked at [1]. There are a few details that we have not managed to hammer out and we propose to tackle inside the LLVM monorepo. I have put a summary of these at the bottom of this mail. Does anyone have any objections to flang being merged into LLVM with these issues still in-flight? Obviously we remain committed to solving them after merging into LLVM? If that is all good then, as previously agreed, we want to give folks something more concrete to review and a bit of time to give feedback on it before we commit. David...

...hard.Barton at arm.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] F18 ready to be merged + preview of merge Hi, This sounds reasonable to me overall. There are some CMake issue to go through (I need to dig into it a bit). When I run `ninja check-flang` at the moment (after fixing CMake) I end up with: Testing Time: 16.22s ******************** Failing Tests (12): Flang :: Lower/pre-fir-tree04.f90 Flang :: Semantics/allocate11.f90 Flang :: Semantics/allocate13.f90 Flang :: Semantics/c_f_pointer.f90 Flang :: Semantics/call04.f9...

...ld you be able to link to/describe the history on this > process/decision. I can find one old thread where this was first proposed (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/130497.html ) with > some general positive responses and a lot of questions. > > I see there's a flang-dev list, though I'm not sure where code review is > happening (is there flang-commits or equivalent?) as there's not much > chatter on the mailing list that I can see. > > There is a flang-commits. We have everything set up to use Phabricator > as MLIR did. > > > &a...

...v at lists.llvm.org> > *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] F18 ready to be merged + preview of merge > > > > Hi, > > > > This sounds reasonable to me overall. There are some CMake issue to go > through (I need to dig into it a bit). > > > > When I run `ninja check-flang` at the moment (after fixing CMake) I end up > with: > > > > Testing Time: 16.22s > > ******************** > > Failing Tests (12): > > Flang :: Lower/pre-fir-tree04.f90 > > Flang :: Semantics/allocate11.f90 > > Flang :: Semantics/allocate13.f...

Hi, [I started this discussion on a single mailing list (flang-dev [0]) but this is a notice to the others (llvm, clang, openmp) so we hopefully get all interested parties involved.] This is an RFC for the design of the OpenMP front-ends under the LLVM umbrella. It is necessary to talk about this now as Flang (aka. F18) is maturing at a very promising rate...

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 sh...

Hi All, The flang project (a Fortran compiler) is getting ready to join the monorepo. We intend to preserve the existing history by rewriting the existing commits as a linear series of commits on top of llvm-project. I understand the flang community would like to do this before the LLVM 10 branch in due in mid J...

...be able to link to/describe the history on this > process/decision. I can find one old thread where this was first proposed ( > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/130497.html ) with > some general positive responses and a lot of questions. > > I see there's a flang-dev list, though I'm not sure where code review is > happening (is there flang-commits or equivalent?) as there's not much > chatter on the mailing list that I can see. There is a flang-commits. We have everything set up to use Phabricator as MLIR did. > & I'm a bit conce...

*TL;DR* We propose some non-trivial refactoring in Clang and LLVM to enable further work on Flang driver. *SUMMARY* We would like to start extracting the driver/frontend code from Clang (alongside the code that the driver/frontend depends on, e.g. Diagnostics) and move the components that could be re-used by non-C-based languages to LLVM. From our initial investigation we see that these ch...

Neat, another fortran compiler option. Does anyone have a list/comparison of all the LLVM fortran compilers? I'm not really tracking this, since Fortran isn't really my area of expertise, but I've seen the following. Perhaps there are even more? "Flang". The original of the name, I think? Abandoned. https://github.com/llvm-flang/flang "Fort" -- fork of the above flang, renamed. Seems active. https://github.com/llvm-fortran/fort/ "Flag". Different from the other "flang". Active, but deprecated in favor of f18. h...

Hi Eric, Apologies, I failed to disambiguate clearly, because there are multiple projects named flang. I was referring to the "new" flang, whose repository is currently found at https://github.com/flang-compiler/f18. It will land in the monorepo under a directory called "/flang/". f18 has been approved to join, for reference see "[llvm-dev] f18 is accepted as part of LLVM...

On 6/11/20 4:04 PM, James Y Knight wrote: > I think the expectation is that LLVM remains at the bottom of the > dependency tree, with frontend-support depending on LLVM, and Clang and > Flang depending on frontend-support (and LLVM). > > Not everything which makes sense to share between clang and flang makes > sense to be part of llvm core. E.g., implementation of a GCC-compatible > command-line compiler-driver seems like it would be very much out-of-place > in llvm core....

Hi All, As discussed before Christmas, this is a reminder that we intend to merge flang on the 13th January (next Monday) before the llvm-10 branch. At the moment I'm proposing to do it at 10am GMT. I can be flexible on this point if it requires close coordination with anyone in another timezone, just let me know. Previous discussion was in [llvm-dev] Flang landing in the mono...

...ia llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 05:08, Andrzej Warzynski via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> *TL;DR* >> >> We propose some non-trivial refactoring in Clang and LLVM to enable >> further work on Flang driver. >> >> *SUMMARY* >> We would like to start extracting the driver/frontend code from Clang >> (alongside the code that the driver/frontend depends on, e.g. >> Diagnostics) and move the components that could be re-used by >> non-C-based languages to LLVM. Fr...

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 01:48, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am in favor of having a flang front end in tree. I have concerns about the design of flang versus other front ends, the lack of llvm based library use, and a number of other things that I tried to enumerate in previous emails. I don't know if anything has changed and the responses I got back originally were "we're...

...tried to compile a list of the concerns that folks have raised so far. I think all these have been addressed (please correct me if you think otherwise) 1. Audit trail/visibility of code review [Addressed by Peter - code has been reviewed [a] to F18 coding guidelines [b]. 2. Long-term viability of Flang community and overlap with existing LLVM community [Hopefully Hal and Johannes replies and Greg's and Pat's and my reply demonstrate long-term commitment to Flang after upstreaming] 3. Compatibility of license [Addressed by Steve, a recent update has made the licenses compatible [c]] 4. No...

...mentation. >> >> Thank you Kiran. >> >> > But the latest is what is there in the RFC in discourse. >> >> I have used this as reference for the response. >> >> > We did a study of a few constructs and clauses which was shared as >> mails to flang-dev and the RFC. As we make progress and before >> implementation, we will share further details. >> >> > “ Yes, parallel and flush would be the next two constructs that we >> will do.” -- from a comment in latest RFC >> >> For the above mentioned reasons, I w...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alex Bradbury" <asb at asbradbury.org> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "flang-dev" <flang-dev at googlegroups.com>, "Rob Neely" <neely4 at llnl.gov>, > "douglas miles (PGI)" <douglas.miles at pgroup.com> > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 1:41:08 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Adapting and open-sourcing PGI's Fortran fro...