On Sunday 20 November 2005 00:49, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > On Saturday 19 November 2005 18:56, Chris Lattner wrote: > >>> Only the Ada frontend seems to be in a state to maybe support direct > >>> frontend IR to LLVM translation. > >> > >> Sure, also maybe Fortran? > > > > I wouldn't count on it... > > Can you explain what you mean? The context above was speculating about > the possibility of reducing dependency on the 'tree' data structure. My > impression was that Fortran used its own private IR (gfc_expr for example) > that wasn't based on trees. I thought that it converted to trees as its > interface to the rest of GCC, in which case, it is quite possible for it > to convert to LLVM directly instead.
I think converting the fortran front-end would be easier than writing a GENRIC->LLVM converter, but not by much. Making the fortran frontend generate LLVM instead of trees is a fair amount of work, but IMHO doable. Making it support LLVM *and* trees would be a lot more work, and probably not worthwhile. I'm not sure I agree with the original statement. For C++ at least we already do a fair amount of conversion from "native" language trees to GENERIC/GIMPLE. Paul
