similar to: [LLVMdev] gfortran

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > Hi, in a thread this afternoon about compiling the Fortran SPEC2000 to > LLVM bytecode, Chris mentioned that it should be possible to compile > to LLVM with the gfortran front end, although no one has necessarily > tried it. Yup. > I was surprised (and happy) to hear this, as under the impression that > it would require a

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

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?

Another option might 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

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 > > >> all, > > > Actually, the entire suite compiles flawlessly with

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: >> No, gfortran in gcc 4.0 is, ehm, highly experimental (read: a piece of >> junk). Gfortran in gcc 4.1 was the first one that worked for NIST (and >> for SPEC). > > Hm. I had noticed a bunch of changes in the current sources, but had > hoped 4.0.1 wasn't too far behind. This is discouraging. So, it sounds > like it

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

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/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

On 9/6/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: [snip] > > ../../src/gcc/llvm-convert.cpp:3871: failed assertion > > `(TREE_CONSTANT(exp) || TREE_CODE(exp) == STRING_CST) && "Isn't a > > constant!"' > > > > In this case, TreeConstantToLLVM::Convert() is getting a constant to >

On 9/1/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > > I wanted to know if I should submit patches with comments around them > > like the "APPLE LOCAL LLVM" ones that mark the LLVM-only changes to > > the tree. I'd like to make it as easy as possible to apply these, so > > let me know any rules I

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: >> be though. > > I'm thinking that effort on 4.0.1 gfortran is not worthwhile, since > 4.0.1 fails to compile some pretty basic examples, and there are some > pretty extensive changes between then and 4.2. ok >> comperable) to merge the LLVM changes into 4.1. I'm personally not >> interested in doing the work,

The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with gfortran at all, so I had to work from my own sample codes, and generate test cases from them. Here's what works now, and I have a separate test case for each of these: statement functions intrinsic functions (print, cos, etc) loops, goto statments scalarized array operations function calls with *no arguments* simple common

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > Hi, in order to get a handle on the questions in Chris's previous > email, I rebuilt LLVM with debugging info, and then rebuilt gcc4 with > CHECKING_ENABLED. > > In the process, I ran into an assertion error when compiling the first > part of libgfortran: ok. > ../../src/gcc/llvm-convert.cpp:3871: failed assertion >

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > Here's what works now, and I have a separate test case for each of these: > > statement functions > intrinsic functions (print, cos, etc) > loops, goto statments > scalarized array operations > function calls with *no arguments* > simple common blocks Great! > Function calls with more than one argument don't work.

Hi, in order to get a handle on the questions in Chris's previous email, I rebuilt LLVM with debugging info, and then rebuilt gcc4 with CHECKING_ENABLED. In the process, I ran into an assertion error when compiling the first part of libgfortran: ../../src/gcc/llvm-convert.cpp:3871: failed assertion `(TREE_CONSTANT(exp) || TREE_CODE(exp) == STRING_CST) && "Isn't a

On 9/11/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > >> No, gfortran in gcc 4.0 is, ehm, highly experimental (read: a piece of > >> junk). Gfortran in gcc 4.1 was the first one that worked for NIST (and > >> for SPEC). > > > > Hm. I had noticed a bunch of changes in the current sources, but had >

On 9/1/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/1/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: [snip] > Now f951 doesn't crash when compiling, but still can't compile the > libgfortran files. It now finds some syntax errors in a generated file > that's part of the intrinsics

Hi, in trying to build an llvm-gfortran on linux from today's gcc4 SVN, I get the following link errors that didn't show up on OS X. This is also using LLVM CVS from this morning. They appear to mostly be related to CodeWarrior compatibility code, but a couple are less obvious. What's the best way to fix this? I'm stuck without my powerbook for at least three weeks and I'd

Hi Chris, > > I use NAG with llvm-gcc4. What sort of errors do you get? Did you > configure llvm-test with the appropriate flags to find it? > Yes, I did. llvm-test is configured as follows: (in /work/LLVM/1.8/ llvm/project/llvm-test): ./configure --with-spec2000=/work/SPEC_CPU2000_1.3_src/benchspec -- without-f2c --with-f95-bin=/work/NAG_f95/bin --with-f95-lib=/work/

On 4/9/2011 6:09 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jack, thanks for the numbers. Any chance of analysing why gcc does better on > those where it does much better than dragonegg? > > Ciao, Duncan. Also, does -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns get Dragonegg to match GCC performance where GCC was faster? Marcus