[LLVMdev] gfortran calling convention
ribrdb at google.com
Mon Sep 11 13:20:47 PDT 2006
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 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?
> > >
> > > 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 might be a waste of effort to work on the 4.0.1
> > llvm-gfortran.
> > What are the plans for moving to a newer gcc for the llvm branch? I
> > suspect it isn't planned too soon, right?
> > What about just updating the fortran-related sources in the llvm
> > branch to their current state in gcc svn and going from there, does
> > anyone have a good idea how difficult that would be? From my limited
> > experience, it seems like the interface between gfortran and the rest
> > of the gcc tree doesn't need to change much.
> > I'm not clear on how hard that would be to manage merging later, but I
> > would like to be able to keep moving on this without running over old
> > bugs...
> > Any ideas from those more familiar with the situation?
> I'm actually trying this while I wait for some other things to
> complete, but as it stands, it seems like a bad idea. It certainly
> seems more complicated than just dropping in new sources.
> What I did was simply to copy over the libgfortran/ and gcc/fortran/
> directories from the GCC SVN (4.2) from last friday into an llvm-gcc
> tree, re-apply my changes from the previous patches, and try
> What I got was a bunch of link errors in gtype-desc.c, and I'm not
> sure I want to make any changes outside of the gfortran subdirs, since
> that would make merging changes back in a real pain.
> Am I missing another option, or am I out of luck until llvm-gcc updates to 4.1?
> Michael McCracken
> UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
> research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/
> misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the llvm-dev