[llvm-dev] Flang landing in the monorepo - next Monday!

[Eric Christopher via llvm-dev]

Thanks Hal, having a plan of action will alleviate my concerns completely.

-eric

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020, 6:53 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:

> FYI to everyone: If you have things that you would like to see done
> before a merge of Flang, please reply with as many details as you have
> time to provide (and if you have things that you would like to see done
> soon, but you're comfortable with them happening after the merge, please
> share those items as well). Our Flang community technical call on Monday
> morning will be dedicated to forming a concrete plan from any
> yet-unaddressed items and making sure that we have a checklist to address.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Hal
>
> On 1/8/20 1:01 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 01:48, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> I am in favor of having a flang front end in tree. I have concerns
> about the design of flang versus other front ends, the lack of llvm based
> library use, and a number of other things that I tried to enumerate in
> previous emails. I don't know if anything has changed and the responses I
> got back originally were "we're going to do it anyway" so it didn't leave
> much room for engagement.
> > (Disclaimer: Not taking sides, I have no stake in Flang or Fortran).
> >
> > I think David's comparison to LLDB is interesting. It started very
> > distant, and then with time merged with the codebase and now it's a
> > full fledged LLVM project.
> >
> > The current Flang (F18) is meant to be much closer to LLVM than the
> > previous one, and the whole mindset was afaik to keep it that way. In
> > the same way that LLDB once was.
> >
> > I do agree with Hal that there is a small but significant overlap of
> > communities, and I do agree with Rick that the longer it stays
> > separate, the harder it will be for that sub-community.
> >
> > But LLDB started at a time where "being an LLVM project" was mostly
> > about being in our SVN repo. There was no mono-repo, and the cost of
> > being there was lower-ish.
> >
> > I believe that can be solved with build semantics (CMake stuff?), not
> > a big problem, so the main issue is about community: will the project
> > move fast enough towards LLVM integration or will it dangle with
> > downstream implementations and be mostly useless upstream?
> >
> > I think we have enough people that care about Flang publicly putting
> > their names forward. This makes me assume the former, so I'm
> > personally ok with the merge.
> >
> > If it happens before the current branch or not, will depend on how
> > fast they're willing to work towards a working Fortran front-end.
> >
> > I'd assume that, once it's in, the next release (July/20) would have
> > to have something minimally decent. But that's not a strong opinion,
> > so, salt & pepper.
> >
> > cheers,
> > --renato
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200108/80db6c22/attachment.html>