[Flang-dev] [F18/AST] Using clang tooling with f18
dag at cray.com
Fri Oct 12 14:03:32 EDT 2018
NOTE: I accidentally sent this to the wrong address for clang, so don't
reply to this thread. Use the repost I just sent.
My apologies for the spam...
David Greene <dag at cray.com> writes:
> Hi all,
> We've been having a bit of discussion over on flang-dev and wanted to
> bring in clang people to comment/brainstorm. Here is the original post
> that kicked this off on flang-dev:
> I was hoping f18 would lower to something akin to clang's AST.
> Obviously clang's AST doesn't directly apply to Fortran but perhaps
> some kind of common interface could exist so that clang tools could
> work with Fortran codes. It would be great to have things like the
> clang static analyzer and clang-doc for Fortran.
> Some tools will be language-specific of course but it seems like
> Fortran and C-family languages share enough common concepts that some
> tooling could work with both, given a common interface.
> Language-specific tools would work with a more language-specific
> My impression from the presentation is that there's a lot more that
> could be shared with clang. The messaging system and command-line
> options infrastructure should be shareable, for example. Maybe
> there's already work being done in these areas to make f18 a
> first-class LLVM project.
> Folks raised some concerns/areas to explore:
> - Can we represent various Fortran constructs with additions to the
> clang AST? For example:
> * Implied DO loops
> * Array syntax
> * I/O statements (FORMAT, READ, NAMELIST, etc.)
> * Array declarations (DIMENSION, etc.)
> * Array syntax
> * ...
> - Can clang's infrastructure handle various Fortran oddities like
> non-reserved keyworks and the ability to redefine constants?
> These may primarily be "dusty deck" issues and perhaps for tooling
> purposes a 98% solution is ok. F18 still needs to fully handle them,
> of course.
> - Can we modify clang's AST and surrounding infrastructure to re-use
> bits of clang tooling for f18 or should we create some kind of common
> tooling interface for clang/f18 tooling that can also support
> language-specific bits?
> - Can this be forward-looking for tooling for other languages (Rust,
> Chapel, Go, etc.)?
> We pretty quickly came to a point where we needed input from clang
> folks, so here we are. :)
> flang-dev mailing list
> flang-dev at lists.flang-compiler.org
More information about the flang-dev