[llvm-dev] FC : A MLIR+LLVM based Fortran front end (original) (raw)

Prashanth N R via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Feb 17 09:19:04 PST 2020

Hi Petr-

  1. We compile SPEC benchmarks bwaves and xchange currently. We are close to compiling fotonik at this point.
  2. We released the source as experimental for the community to take a look. Soon we will open source the entire history of development(we are working on the script to upload the history).

thanks, -Prashanth

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:20 AM Petr Penzin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

FC https://github.com/compiler-tree-technologies/fc Not related to any of the above, but seems to be in some ways similar to Clang/(old)Flang/Fort. Recursive descent parser; emits MLIR. Does not use tablegen, has a different way of throwing errors, has no builtin diagnostics, also no driver. Project has only seven commits to this date. Not clear on the Fortran standard support (has flags to support f77 and f95), the claim that it can compile a couple of larger application from SPEC, but I can't find which ones.

On 1/13/20 9:02 AM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: Neat, another fortran compiler option. Does anyone have a list/comparison of all the LLVM fortran compilers? I'm not really tracking this, since Fortran isn't really my area of expertise, but I've seen the following. Perhaps there are even more? "Flang". The original of the name, I think? Abandoned. https://github.com/llvm-flang/flang "Fort" -- fork of the above flang, renamed. Seems active. https://github.com/llvm-fortran/fort/ "Flag". Different from the other "flang". Active, but deprecated in favor of f18. https://github.com/flang-compiler/flang "f18". Rewrite-from-scratch (?) of adjacent "flang". Active, but not fully-functional yet (I think?). https://github.com/flang-compiler/f18 "FC". Newly-developed, independent of the other compilers. Active. (But this source-code dates from the previous announcement, not yet updated with latest developments): https://github.com/compiler-tree-technologies/fc I don't know how any of these compare with each other, nor why we have so many. I have no opinion on which or whether any of these should be "blessed", nor do I really want to become educated enough on this topic to gain such an opinion personally. But, given that there appear to be at least 3 fortran compilers under active development by different people, I would love to be reassured that such a comparison has been done, and that we are selecting one of them for good reasons. It'd be great if someone (or multiple someones) could post a summary/comparison of what these things all are, and why one is the right path forward vs another. On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:46 AM Prashanth N R via llvm-dev <_ _llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: Hi Chris- We are mostly cleaning up the code for open sourcing. Early code drop will happen in a day or two and will continue through this week. We would love to work with the rest of the community on this.

thanks, -Prashanth On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:17 AM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote:

Agreed! Is the code already available? What are your plans for it, and are you interested in collaboration with the rest of the LLVM community?

-Chris On Jan 11, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <_ _llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: Hi, Prashanth, That's great news! It sounds like you've made a lot of progress, and I certainly hope that you can make your source available under the LLVM license and that we can all work together going forward. -Hal On 1/11/20 12:52 PM, Prashanth N R via llvm-dev wrote: Hi- In August we made an announcement of "FC: A new fortran front end" [1]. At that time to get an end-to-end solution, we made FC to emit LLVM IR directly. At present, we have upgraded FC to emit MLIR. Currently the language supported is close to Fortran-95. Apart from 400+ unit test cases, out framework passes two SPEC-2017 benchmarks successfully. Currently we are cleaning up the code and plan to open source the same in a week or so. Apart from the front end changes, we have defined a new high level dialect in MLIR for representing Fortran. We have defined a new Loop Nest Optimization framework along with one Loop Nest Optimization in it for the time being. Also we have supported 4 OpenMP constructs and way to express the same in MLIR framework. Entire code is in the spirit of LLVM. If the community is interested, we would like to work with the community and move forward. thanks, -Prashanth PS: We did try to use F18 for a while and hit the issues raised in [2], [3]. 1. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-August/134620.html 2. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/138069.html 3. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/flang-dev/attachments/20191202/6e7c1e51/attachment-0001.pdf OR http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/flang-dev/2019-December/000089.html

LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -- Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

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/20200217/2f2c9ff7/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list