[PATCH] D102877: [flang][docs] Initial documentation for the Fortran LLVM Test Suite.

[Nichols A. Romero via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

naromero77 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: flang/docs/FortranLLVMTestSuite.md:14
+
+Although the Flang driver is unable to generate code at this time, we
+are neverthelesss incrementally adding Fortran tests into the LLVM
----------------
rovka wrote:
> This looks like the kind of sentence that's likely to get outdated and confuse people when flang does become capable of generating code. Do we have a better place to put this info? I don't remember if there's any "Current status" document that's constantly updated for flang.
I think that's a good point. 

Yes, we mention the current status here:
https://flang.llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#introducing-flang

However, I think it would be good to keep this sentence because it adds a bit of context. One might wonder why write a Fortran Test Suite, if there is no compiler driver able to generate code.

Just my opinion. I do need to create a `mental note` to update this page once Flang can generate code and this version of Flang is upstreamed.


================
Comment at: flang/docs/FortranLLVMTestSuite.md:16
+are neverthelesss incrementally adding Fortran tests into the LLVM
+Test Suite. We are currently testing against GFortran while we make
+progress towards completing the new Flang driver with full
----------------
rovka wrote:
> Do we have or plan to have a buildbot doing this?
A buildbot with GFortran or a buildbot with the `throw away` driver?

I am not sure that setting up a buildbot with GFortran would be appropriate unless there is precedent for it elsewhere in the project. 

It might be worth it for the `throw away` driver, but I would want one of the higher ups to chime in.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D102877/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D102877