similar to: [RFC] Refactor Clang: move frontend/driver/diagnostics code to LLVM

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

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

Thank you all for your feedback, this has been very helpful! There have been a few important points raised by different people. Below I try to address them one by one. I hope that you don't mind me sending it in one email. Please let me know if I missed something! *QUESTIONS RAISED IN PREVIOUS EMAILS* On 02/06/2020 20:51, Eli Friedman wrote: > Separate from clang, LLVM itself actually

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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, 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 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