[LLVMdev] [GSoC] Flang's end of GSoC report

Joerg Sonnenberger joerg at britannica.bec.de
Mon Sep 23 12:09:10 PDT 2013

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:01:46AM +0700, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> On 09/23/13 11:54 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> >
> >On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:25 AM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com
> ><mailto:arphaman at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi everyone!
> >>
> >>Today is the official "pencils down" day for GSoC and I wrote a
> >>report describing what results I've achieved since my last
> >>report in July:
> >>
> >>http://flang-gsoc.blogspot.ie/2013/09/end-of-gsoc-report.html
> >>
> >>Thanks for this GSoC LLVM!
> >
> >Wow, this is really fantastic work.  I'm surprised and impressed
> >by how much progress you made.
> >
> >Can you comment more about Pathscale's plans, and why they don't
> >want to release the code?
> Initially the code will continue to be developed privately, but
> there's a big ?<question mark> and sticky note to look at what makes
> best sense - It's a conservative approach, but that's how it is for
> now.

Given the nature of path64, I think it would be nice to keep all parsing
related parts and all semantic analysis open. It would also be nice to
keep functional tests for the code generation as open as possible, even
if might not fit into a "main" repository due to testing executable
code. The goal would be to allow Pathscale to what they are doing on the
backend without having a strongly divergating frontend, which is likely
not in the interest of anyone.

I am aware that flang in the current form shared code with clang in
non-trivial ways and it certainly will require some effort to refactor
the code on either side for allowing flang to become an integrated LLVM
project. Who's interested with dealing with that on the Clang side? I
hope Alex is willing to work on the flang side?


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list