peterwaller-arm added a comment. Thanks for chiming in.
> Sorry, I had missed the RfC, but it looks like there wasn't a lot of > discussion on it anyways. Apologies @thakis - did I jump the gun? And if so, what could I have done differently? > Adding fortran support to clang's driver has been suggested and decided > against before, see "[cfe-commits] [RFC and PATCH] Fortran" Interesting, I had missed that conversation! Google and DDG fail to find it for me even quoting sentences out of it. Found it by wgetting the gzip mailing list archives and grepping them - is there a better way? :) That conversation was in 2012, and since then flang has been accepted as a subproject to LLVM in "[llvm-dev] f18 is accepted as part of LLVM project! <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-April/131703.html>". Since the acceptance, the project has renamed to flang, and is in the process of actively being integrated into the llvm project. As discussed in the RFC, I understand that libclangDriver was always intended to be a flexible driver used by other frontends, so in light of that, does the change still seem unreasonable? My expectation is that the footprint of fortran on libclangDriver should only be quite modest. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63607/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63607 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
