[LLVMdev] GSoC project questions.
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:
> 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).
>> essentially, how you get 'union' in Fortran. I think it is not used
>> modern Fortran, however. I recommend that we should at least think
>> to support these various things, but only actually do it up front if
>> in BLAS.
>> I just did a search through BLAS sources and EQUIVALENCE isn't used
>> might consider getting rid of it for the proposal. The COMMON blocks
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev