[LLVMdev] gfortran calling convention

[Chris Lattner]

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.

ok

>> 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.

-Chris

-- 
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/