=?utf-8?q?Iñaki?= Amatria Barral
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+! This test verifies that using `-x f95` does not cause the driver to assume
+! this file is in fixed-form.
+
+program main
+ print *, "Hello, World!"
+end
+
+! RUN: %flang -### -x f95 %s 2>&1 | FileCh
=?utf-8?q?Iñaki?= Amatria Barral
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+program main
+ print *, __FILE__, __LINE__
+end
+
+! This test verifies that `flang`'s `-x` options behave like `gfortran`'s.
+! Specifically:
+! - `-x f95` should process the file based on its extensi
=?utf-8?q?I=C3=B1aki?= Amatria Barral
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
https://github.com/tarunprabhu commented:
Thanks for continuing to see this through
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130268
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.o
tarunprabhu wrote:
Thanks for working on this @JDPailleux.
This looks like a substantial change including to parts of clang. Is it
possible to split this into two. One PR for just the "infrastructure" and
another for the flang-specifc warnings. This would make it easier to focus the
discussi
=?utf-8?q?Iñaki?= Amatria Barral
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
https://github.com/tarunprabhu edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130268
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c
=?utf-8?q?Iñaki?= Amatria Barral
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+program main
+ print *, __FILE__, __LINE__
+end
+
+! This test verifies that `flang`'s `-x` options behave like `gfortran`'s.
+! Specifically:
+! - `-x f95` should process the file based on its extensi
tarunprabhu wrote:
For compiler options, we have various "categories" in `Options.td`,
`ClangOptions`, `FlangOptions` etc. which only apply to specific frontends. I
haven't looked very closely at this, but I believe that there is only one
"category" for warnings. Is this correct? If that the c
https://github.com/tarunprabhu approved this pull request.
Thanks for all the changes, Tom! LGTM.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130788
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c
=?utf-8?q?I=C3=B1aki?= Amatria Barral
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
https://github.com/tarunprabhu approved this pull request.
Thanks for all the changes :-)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130268
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.
https://github.com/tarunprabhu commented:
Do we really want to maintain an equivalence with clang by keeping this in
`CodeGenOptions` when it really ought to be a `TargetOption`? It looks like
almost all of the handling of this option takes place in `flang`, so we
probably shouldn't be bound t
@@ -172,7 +172,8 @@ void Flang::addCodegenOptions(const ArgList &Args,
options::OPT_finit_global_zero,
options::OPT_fno_init_global_zero,
options::OPT_ftime_report,
options::OPT_ftime_report_EQ, options::OPT_funroll_loop
tarunprabhu wrote:
> > If you are soliciting reviews, you could also use the "Reviewers" box on
> > the top right of this page
>
> I would, but I do not currently have the right permissions to use the box.
> Hence the ccs - I need someone else to do it.
Huh. I didn't realize that one needed s
https://github.com/tarunprabhu requested changes to this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132801
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -4032,11 +4032,14 @@ def : Flag<["-"], "ftree-vectorize">, Alias;
def : Flag<["-"], "fno-tree-vectorize">, Alias;
}
+let Visibility = [ClangOption, FlangOption] in {
tarunprabhu wrote:
I think we should merge this with the visibility block for `fvectorize`
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+! RUN: %flang -### -S -fslp-vectorize %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CHECK-SLP-VECTORIZE %s
+! RUN: %flang -### -S -fno-slp-vectorize %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CHECK-NO-SLP-VECTORIZE %s
+! RUN: %flang -### -S -O1 %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CH
@@ -161,6 +161,14 @@ void Flang::addCodegenOptions(const ArgList &Args,
options::OPT_fno_vectorize, enableVec))
CmdArgs.push_back("-vectorize-loops");
+ // -fslp-vectorize is enabled based on the optimization level selected.
+ bool EnableSLPVec = shoul
tarunprabhu wrote:
> cc @tblah @DavidTruby
If you are soliciting reviews, you could also use the "Reviewers" box on the
top right of this page
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132801
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
ht
https://github.com/tarunprabhu approved this pull request.
Thanks Tom. This looks fine to me, but please wait for those more familiar with
OpenMP before merging.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133745
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits
https://github.com/tarunprabhu commented:
Other than the nit, this looks ok. However, I must admit that I don't fully
understand the nuances of the various modes, and I got a bit lost with the
previous PR as well, so I'll leave it to someone else to approve as they see
fit.
https://github.com
@@ -88,8 +88,8 @@ TYPE("assembler-with-cpp", Asm, PP_Asm,
"S", phases
// modules when Flang needs to emit pre-processed files. Therefore, the
// `PP_TYPE` is set to `PP_Fortran` so that the driver is fine with
// "pre-processing a pre-processed fil
https://github.com/tarunprabhu approved this pull request.
LGTM. Thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134362
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -3177,3 +3177,25 @@ bool tools::shouldEnableVectorizerAtOLevel(const ArgList
&Args, bool isSlpVec) {
return false;
}
+
+/// Enable -fvectorize based on the optimization level selected.
+void tools::handleVectorizeLoopsArgs(const ArgList &Args,
+
@@ -6974,6 +7019,22 @@ defm loop_versioning : BoolOptionWithoutMarshalling<"f",
"version-loops-for-stri
PosFlag,
NegFlag>;
+defm stack_repack_arrays
+: BoolOptionWithoutMarshalling<
+ "f", "stack-repack-arrays",
+ PosFlag,
+ NegFlag<
+
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+! Test forwarding just the forwarding of -f[no-]stack-repack-arrays options:
tarunprabhu wrote:
```suggestion
! Test forwarding of -f[no-]stack-repack-arrays options:
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134002
https://github.com/tarunprabhu approved this pull request.
Thanks for the changes, David. :-)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133775
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-c
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+! Test forwarding just the forwarding of -f[no-]repack-arrays options:
tarunprabhu wrote:
```suggestion
! Test forwarding of -f[no-]repack-arrays options:
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134002
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+! Test forwarding just the forwarding of -frepack-arrays-contiguity options:
tarunprabhu wrote:
```suggestion
! Test forwarding of -frepack-arrays-contiguity options:
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134002
https://github.com/tarunprabhu approved this pull request.
LGTM. Thanks.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134230
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tarunprabhu approved this pull request.
Apart from the docstrings, this looks good. Thanks for the changes :-)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132801
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llv
@@ -3177,3 +3177,25 @@ bool tools::shouldEnableVectorizerAtOLevel(const ArgList
&Args, bool isSlpVec) {
return false;
}
+
+/// Enable -fvectorize based on the optimization level selected.
+void tools::handleVectorizeLoopsArgs(const ArgList &Args,
+
https://github.com/tarunprabhu edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132801
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -3177,3 +3177,25 @@ bool tools::shouldEnableVectorizerAtOLevel(const ArgList
&Args, bool isSlpVec) {
return false;
}
+
+/// Enable -fvectorize based on the optimization level selected.
tarunprabhu wrote:
It might be better to move the docstrings to `Com
tarunprabhu wrote:
Is this buildbot failure related:
[https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/89/builds/19482](https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/89/builds/19482)?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132801
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cf
https://github.com/tarunprabhu approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132409
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+! Check support of -m64.
+! RUN: %flang -target i386-pc-win32 -m64 -### - %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
-check-prefix=M64 %s
+
+! M64: "-triple" "{{[^-]+}}64-{{.*}}"
tarunprabhu wrote:
If the `-target` is given as `i386-*`, this should always return `x86_
https://github.com/tarunprabhu edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133775
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+! Test forwarding just the forwarding of -frepack-arrays-contiguity options:
+! RUN: %flang -frepack-arrays-contiguity=whole %s -### -fsyntax-only 2>&1 |
FileCheck --check-prefix=WHOLECMD %s
+! RUN: %flang -frepack-arrays-contiguity=innermost %s -### -fsyntax-on
201 - 237 of 237 matches
Mail list logo
