[llvm-dev] F18 ready to be merged + preview of merge

Tue Apr 7 16:22:44 PDT 2020

Attached is the log.
I'm building with:

clang version 10.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/
3a6da1122b990386edeba0987d0d1fdc9c8dc53d)
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix

On some Ubuntu-like distribution.

I also ran with ASAN once and it found a bunch of leaks in bin/tco.

Best,

-- 
Mehdi

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Richard Barton <Richard.Barton at arm.com>
wrote:

> Hi Medhi
>
>
>
> Definitely not expected, the tests should all pass.
>
>
>
> As well as what David asked, the verbose output from lit would be helpful
> for debugging too.
>
>
>
> Thanks for giving it a try.
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> *From:* David Truby <David.Truby at arm.com>
> *Sent:* 7 April, 2020 11:49
> *To:* Richard Barton <Richard.Barton at arm.com>; Mehdi AMINI <
> joker.eph at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] F18 ready to be merged + preview of merge
>
>
>
> Hi Mehdi,
>
>
>
> I can't replicate those failures at my end, could you let me know what OS,
> compiler and CMake flags you're using so I can try and reproduce?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> David Truby
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Mehdi
> AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Sent:* 07 April 2020 06:44
> *To:* Richard Barton <Richard.Barton at arm.com>
> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] F18 ready to be merged + preview of merge
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This sounds reasonable to me overall. There are some CMake issue to go
> through (I need to dig into it a bit).
>
>
>
> When I run `ninja check-flang` at the moment (after fixing CMake) I end up
> with:
>
>
>
> Testing Time: 16.22s
>
> ********************
>
> Failing Tests (12):
>
>     Flang :: Lower/pre-fir-tree04.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/allocate11.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/allocate13.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/c_f_pointer.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/call04.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/canondo16.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/coarrays01.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/critical02.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/doconcurrent01.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/dosemantics11.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/resolve50.f90
>
>     Flang :: Semantics/resolve87.f90
>
>
>
>
>
> Are these known issues?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:27 AM Richard Barton via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi llvm-dev
>
>
>
> We believe we have completed enough of the agreed pre-upstreaming changes
> to start talking about merging F18 into LLVM. The live status is tracked at
> [1]. There are a few details that we have not managed to hammer out and we
> propose to tackle inside the LLVM monorepo. I have put a summary of these
> at the bottom of this mail.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any objections to flang being merged into LLVM with these
> issues still in-flight? Obviously we remain committed to solving them after
> merging into LLVM?
>
>
>
> If that is all good then, as previously agreed, we want to give folks
> something more concrete to review and a bit of time to give feedback on it
> before we commit. David Truby has just now created a preview of what the
> LLVM project would look like with F18 merged in as flang. The obvious
> caveat is that both LLVM and F18 are continuing development so there will
> be additional commits on both sides of the real merge when it happens.
>
>
>
> Here is the merge preview: https://github.com/DavidTruby/llvm-project/
>
>
>
> This branch shows:
>
> ·         The commit history of F18 re-written as a straight line branch
> by Peter Waller's script.
>
> ·         A commit that tweaks F18's README to rename it as flang and
> make it more relevant inside the monorepo (being reviewed under
> https://github.com/flang-compiler/f18/pull/909).
>
> ·         The merge commit that adds F18 to the monorepo as flang
>
> ·         A patch to the monorepo cmake that adds flang as an optionally
> built target - see also https://reviews.llvm.org/D72416
>
>
>
> I really encourage all folks maintaining buildbots or downstream builds to
> give this a look over to make sure it works for you. For everyone else, I
> hope this looks good to you too. All feedback very welcome.
>
>
>
> If everyone is happy with that, we'll agree on a new date in the regular
> F18 community call on Monday. I'll be back in touch after that.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> Remaining Details still in-progress
>
>
>
> [1] clang-format
>
> F18's clang-format file will have a few differences to the global
> formatting style. These are mainly ones that control alignment of code. We
> have not come to an agreement as a community on the best way forward here.
> This flang-dev thread
> <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/flang-dev/2020-March/000243.html>
> summarises the debate. We would like to continue this debate after F18
> becomes part of the monorepo.
>
>
>
> [2] llvm_unreachable
>
> Previously we stated that we would try to use llvm_unreachable in F18
> whenever possible. Presently, F18 has a similar function called die, but
> this is used to cover multiple run-time error cases only some of which
> should be covered by llvm_unreachable. We would like to handle all cases
> together which also means coming up with a good system for reporting ICEs.
> See these code review comments
> <https://github.com/flang-compiler/f18/issues/966> for details. We
> propose to start fresh on this work after F18 becomes part of the monorepo.
>
>
>
> [3] remove_if vs RemoveCarriageReturns
>
> Whilst removing code that manipulated C-style strings we hit upon a case
> which seemed to show that std::remove_if was a regression on certain
> targets over the current algorithm using C standard memmove. This flang-dev
> thread <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/flang-dev/2020-April/000265.html>
> summarises the situation and we are gathering further data before deciding
> what to do. We propose to continue to investigate this and make any
> necessary changes after F18 becomes part of the monorepo.
>
>
>
> [4] Doxygen infrastructure
>
> We are still working through the final comments on this patch
> <https://github.com/flang-compiler/f18/pull/1065> and hope to have it
> merged before we become part of LLVM. As this patch simply adds the
> infrastructure to add doxygen comments and there are no doxygen comments in
> F18 source at present, we think that this should not block F18's inclusion
> in the monorepo. We commit to finishing this off once F18 becomes part of
> the monorepo.
>
>
>
> Created with Microsoft OneNote 2016.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200407/69ccaf29/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: flang-fail.log
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 18688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200407/69ccaf29/attachment.obj>