similar to: F18 upstreaming Finished!

Hi llvm-dev We have not been able to complete all the work we need to do before merging F18 into LLVM as Flang so we will not be dong that today as previously announced. We propose to slip this back a week to let us finish off the last bits of work. All code changes are in review as of Friday. If you want more detail, you can see the exact status here:

Hi Mehdi, I can't replicate those failures at my end, could you let me know what OS, compiler and CMake flags you're using so I can try and reproduce? Thanks! David Truby ________________________________ From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: 07 April 2020 06:44 To: Richard Barton

Attached is the log. I'm building with: clang version 10.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/ 3a6da1122b990386edeba0987d0d1fdc9c8dc53d) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix On some Ubuntu-like distribution. I also ran with ASAN once and it found a bunch of leaks in bin/tco. Best, -- Mehdi On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Richard Barton <Richard.Barton at

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

Hi Eric, Renato Thanks again for the engagement and challenge on this, it is really useful feedback to know what we need to do to get F18 into the project in a way that everyone is happy with. I have tried to give timelines on the points addressed below where I can today. Clearly we need to do some work on points 8-11, but are the above plans/answers to points 1-7 sufficient at this stage and

Can you elaborate on this? - to move the std::string/string_view/StringRef changes to pre-merge unless you're going to have someone dedicated to handling them post-merge (rather than "time permits"). The C vs C++ ism here is fairly strong and I'd like to get the C-style string handling out fairly quickly. I understood this item to be looking into replacing uses of std::string

Hi llvm-dev It's been a few weeks since I last gave an update on F18 and our progress on readying it for inclusion into the monorepo. Last time we discussed this the community challenged us to make the F18 source code look more like an LLVM project and to come up with a plan and schedule for completing this work (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/137989.html) The full

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. -

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

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

On 4/10/19, 12:15 PM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Chris Lattner via llvm-dev" wrote: > The foundation recommends considering a new name for the project (e.g. flang or simply fortran) > to be more accessible and obvious for new contributors - in addition to being the repository name, > it will also be the base stem for mailing lists and other project related material. The f18

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

"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

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 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. >>

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 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 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 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

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