[LLVMdev] gfortran calling convention
michael.mccracken at gmail.com
Mon Sep 11 16:34:29 PDT 2006
On 9/11/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote:
> >> be though.
> > I'm thinking that effort on 4.0.1 gfortran is not worthwhile, since
> > 4.0.1 fails to compile some pretty basic examples, and there are some
> > pretty extensive changes between then and 4.2.
> >> comperable) to merge the LLVM changes into 4.1. I'm personally not
> >> interested in doing the work, but if you wanted to tackle it I'd be happy
> >> to answer questions that arise from it if I can.
> > Yes, it did turn out to be a big change.
> > So are you also saying that it'd be simpler to merge the LLVM changes
> > into 4.1 than it would be to merge them into 4.2?
> Sorry, I'm suggesting that merging the LLVM changes into 4.1 might be
> easier than merging the gfortran changes into 4.0.
> > Maybe it's unwise, but my first impulse if I'm going to tackle merging
> > so many changes is to not merge with a branch. However, I'm not really
> > sure right now how much work we're talking about here.
> I really don't know how hard it will be either. A nice aspect of the LLVM
> changes is that their interface to the rest of the compiler (trees) are
> relatively stable.
What about their interactions with the other Apple changes?
Could I get a working compiler out of only merging the "APPLE LOCAL
LLVM" changes into gcc, or would I have to merge all the Apple changes
As a quick count, I grepped for "APPLE LOCAL" and "APPLE LOCAL LLVM":
"APPLE LOCAL" : ~6000
"APPLE LOCAL*LLVM": 176 (includes "APPLE LOCAL LLVM" and "APPLE LOCAL
begin LLVM", and one instance of "APPLE LOCAL LLVM begin")
I might try the second, but I don't think I have the time for the first.
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
More information about the llvm-dev