similar to: [RFC] Proposed interplay of Clang & Flang & LLVM wrt. OpenMP [@Flang-dev]

Please find the reply inline below On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:59 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:42 AM Vinay Madhusudan via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Reply to Kiran Chandramohan: >> >> > You are welcome to participate, provide feedback and criticism to >> change the

Reply to Kiran Chandramohan: > You are welcome to participate, provide feedback and criticism to change the design as well as to contribute to the implementation. 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

Hi, I have few questions / concerns regarding the design of OpenMP dialect in MLIR that is currently being implemented, mainly for the f18 compiler. Below, I summarize the current state of various efforts in clang / f18 / MLIR / LLVM regarding this. Feel free to add to the list in case I have missed something. 1. [May 2019] An OpenMPIRBuilder in LLVM was proposed for flang and clang frontends.

Please find the reply inline below: On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:02 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:29 AM Vinay Madhusudan <vinay at compilertree.com> > wrote: > >> Please find the reply inline below >> >> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:59 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: >>

Thanks for the reply! It sounds like LLVM IR is being considered for optimizations in OpenMP constructs. There seems to be plans regarding improvement of LLVM IR Framework for providing things required for OpenMP / flang(?) Are there any design considerations which contain pros and cons about using the MLIR vs LLVM IR for various OpenMP related optimizations/ transformations? The latest RFC [

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

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

We are working on OpenMP target offloading for GPUs in Flang, and adopting the same code generation strategy. The proposal is affecting us. It would be nice to know more details about the proposal. So we can prepare ourselves to adapt flang (if everything goes on the way). Have you find and a solution for data sharing? How are you going to manage data sharing for SPMD and non-SPMD? From: cfe-dev

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

On 01/07, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > Hey Peter - would 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

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

Hi Hal, On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:38 PM Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/7/20 4:38 PM, Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev wrote: > > On 01/07, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hey Peter - would you be able to link to/describe the history on this > process/decision. I can find one old thread where this was first proposed

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

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 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 monorepo

Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb Doerfert, Johannes via flang-dev <flang-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > I'm not against a subproject *but* if we also move the existing > llvm/lib/Frontend stuff, that would introduce a dependence from > llvm-core to this project, which I think is uncommon. We could also have > both. At the end of the day it depends on the benefit we would

I take it from this conversation that we should do a --no-ff merge of the rewritten history. The final history will look like this: [llvm project/master] ---------------------> [empty merge commit]                       \_ 2,700ish commits _/^ This means that `git log --first-parent` will only show the merge commit, and not those from the "initial flang" branch. Currently it

On 6/11/20 3:32 AM, Andrzej Warzynski wrote: > > > On 11/06/2020 00:49, Michael Kruse wrote: >> Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb Doerfert, Johannes via >> flang-dev <flang-dev at lists.llvm.org>: >>> I'm not against a subproject *but* if we also move the existing >>> llvm/lib/Frontend stuff, that would introduce a dependence from

I think it would probably make the most sense to land this as a single merge-commit (from the 2700-commit rewritten history you've created) onto llvm-project master, rather than as 2700 individual toplevel commits to master. (Which means: disable the merge-commit prohibition in the github configuration, temporarily, push this commit, and then enable it again). On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:10 PM

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