[LLVMdev] gfortran calling convention

[Michael McCracken]

I'm specifically interested in compiling fortran to LLVM, so I expect
that the changes necessary to get g95 to output LLVM would be
prohibitive.

I'm not 100% familiar with the situation, but g95 is apparently a
one-man project and is not part of gcc, while gfortran was forked from
g95 at some point and is officially part of gcc. At least for my
purposes, g95 is a non-starter.

Thanks,
-mike

On 9/11/06, Ryan Brown <ribrdb at google.com> wrote:
> 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
> > compiling.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -mike
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>


-- 
Michael McCracken
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/
misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/