[LLVMdev] GSoC project questions.

Alex L arphaman at gmail.com
Sat May 4 07:09:02 PDT 2013

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. It's actually a great idea, I completely
missed that the fact that it's possible to do that.

суббота, 4 мая 2013 г. пользователь Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> писал:
> Hi,
> On 24/04/13 21:43, Alex L wrote:
>>     If you are going to work on improvements in this area, then it would
>>     help to add them to the proposal (maybe that will move other, not so
>>     important, features out of scope).
>> That would be a good idea indeed.
>>     The EQUIVALENCE keyword is deprecated, still I don't know if it is
>>     widely used in F77 code. I think one of the main resaons it was
>>     is that it voids all type checking
>> Thanks, I did miss this one.
>>     FWIW, this is still widely used in F77 code (as are common blocks).
This is,
>>     essentially, how you get 'union' in Fortran. I think it is not used
much in
>>     modern Fortran, however. I recommend that we should at least think
about how
>>     to support these various things, but only actually do it up front if
it is
>>     in BLAS.
>> I just did a search through BLAS sources and EQUIVALENCE isn't used
there. I
>> might consider getting rid of it for the proposal. The COMMON blocks
aren't used
>> in BLAS too.
> you may want to see what LLVM IR dragonegg produces for these.  When
> investigating tricky cases, seeing what an existing LLVM based Fortran
> compiler produces could be quite helpful.
> Ciao, Duncan.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130504/95e01ce6/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list