similar to: [RFC] Renaming f18....

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

On 01/03/2019 17:26, Troy Johnson via llvm-dev wrote: > This RFC started a good discussion and I’d like to hear responses from its author > to all of the points that have been made so far. > >   > > FWIW, I’m also in favor of reusing as much from Clang as practical.  In fact, with> the combined repo now, it might make sense to factor out some common front end code > that

Hi, everyone, As you may know, NVIDIA has developed an open-source Fortran frontend for LLVM (http://flang-compiler.org), which consists of the flang frontend itself along with the corresponding Fortran runtime library. The existing frontend's code is mostly written in C, and while a production-quality implementation, does not follow modern software-engineering practices. Our long-standing

Following up on my earlier email. If there is a commitment to checking in f18 already, feel free to disregard it. I went and took a little bit closer look at the sources and want to share some of the findings in case if anyone is interested. Disclosure: I contribute to Fort <http://fort-compiler.org/> (fort-compiler.org), which is the fork of the front-end David Greene mentioned. From

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:45 PM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Stephen Scalpone via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> * The current f18 code will be committed to the new LLVM subproject. The >> f18 code is a set of libraries that implements the Fortran compiler. >>

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:46 PM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Stephen Scalpone via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> * The current f18 code will be committed to the new LLVM subproject. The >> f18 code is a set of libraries that implements the Fortran compiler. >>

"Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > And then there is also the argument for reusing Clang tooling, > which David Greene keeps making, though that idea does not seem to > get a lot of interest. > > > I disagree. There's been a lot of interest in modeling Flang's tooling > after Clang's

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 06:50, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't really consider this addressed without a plan of action (before merge) that contains a list of standard llvm support libraries that would be used in addition to things being removed (pretty much all use of C++ c* headers and more?) as well as staffing and approximate ETAs. Agreed. > I think

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 6:38 PM Richard Smith via 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

*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

Hi all F18 merging has finished so commit access should be back to normal. Thanks Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Richard > Barton via llvm-dev > Sent: 9 April, 2020 16:08 > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: [llvm-dev] F18 upstreaming Now! > > Hi all > > We are about to merge F18

Am Sa., 2. März 2019 um 11:15 Uhr schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > I’d be really opposed to flang reusing the Clang ASTs themselves. C++ is already a complicated language and mixing all of Fortran's concerns (including a completely different object model) will make both of them *worse* than having them stand alone IMO. Could there be a common base

On 18/12/2019 21:49, Eric Christopher wrote: > Yes, I looked through those sources and a number of my questions > around which clang versions have been supported and directory > structure. I think the only difference is removing the direct > questions about earlier flang, but I still don't see code generation > or uses of llvm libraries that would conform to "written in

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

Hi Eric, Old flang certainly uses C-style strings but f18 uses std::string with few exceptions. Most of the instances in f18 of “char *” aren’t really strings in the C sense – they’re not null terminated and are really just pointers into raw or cooked source files/streams. I can’t think of an instance where the compiler dynamically allocates an array of characters and uses it as a C string. -

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

Hi all Thanks for all the replies and engagement on this issue. First point, given the state of discussions today I would like to propose that we don't start the merge at 10:00 GMT on Monday 13th as proposed and we delay by at least 24 hours until after the scheduled F18 technical call on Monday afternoon. In order to help compile a plan of action, I've tried to compile a list of the

Hi llvm-dev We believe we have completed enough of the agreed pre-upstreaming 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

Hello, This is regarding recent/ongoing discussions about F18 being merged in LLVM. I was going through these threads, and I found few important points which were possibly left unanswered (or I might have missed few threads). URL: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/flang-dev/2019-December/000120.html Point: Is (3) AST -> FIR -> MLIR LLVM-IR -> LLVM-IR) in a shape where we can

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 January, so please speak up soon if you see anything needing fixing in what I