On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Michael Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi - > > OK, I have pull request #124 about this, > but: > > I was very surprised to see > symbols with FLAG_TYPE_VARIABLE ending up all the way > in codegen. In particular, I'd recommend that somebody > add an assertion failure near "Why are we getting here?" > around expr.cpp:3721 in the patched version -- I don't > think that code should be necessary. > > > Thanks, > > -michael Michael, [This is direct email rather than GIT-HUB comments]. I took a look at this pull request but I am not certain I understand the scope for some of the changes. It seems to me that this request touches more than one issue but I am not certain how many issues are involved. Tom and I took a look at this and we concluded that I should seek some clarification. 1) The “fix up —about” that you suggest Sung look at seems to be a separable issue. Is that right? It might have been slightly easier if this had been in its own pull-request so that it could be reviewed/applied more easily. Depending on the scope of the other changes we may be able to handle this on our side or we might ask for a separate pull-request. 2) There’s a trivial change in getIntermediateDirName() that is easy to understand and approve. 3) I understand the change you made in externCResolve. There are two relatively simple changes for code that is conditional on LLVM. It is easy to approve and merge these changes. 4) So finally there are the other two commits. We are unsure if this is an effort to fix a different issue that you became aware of or if this is a proposed solution for some other consequences of moving the initFun stuff that we haven’t appreciated. A yellow flag for us is that the change in expr.cpp appears to run for both LLVM and STD but we don’t know of a problem in STD that this change is trying to address. Could you provide some additional background? With thanks and regards, Mike > > On 08/07/2014 01:11 PM, Michael Ferguson wrote: >> Hi Mike - >> >> >> Thanks very much for your help! >> >> module->block->insertAtHead(result) seems to get the job done. I'm doing >> more testing now, but expect a pull request from me soon fixing this >> and maybe another LLVM problem. >> >> (We really need to get nightly/weekly LLVM testing going somehow...) >> >> Best, >> >> -michael >> >> On 08/07/2014 12:26 PM, Mike Noakes wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Michael Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi - >>>> >>>> I've noticed that >>>> chpl --print-passes test/extern/ferguson/externblock/define.chpl >>>> now core dumps in the compiler because >>>> the extern block support tries to do >>>> module->initFn->insertAtHead(result); >>>> when trying to add a global variable, >>>> but module->initFn is NULL. >>>> >>>> This used to work but I recall seeing some recent >>>> changes to module initialization. >>>> >>>> Since readExternC runs fairly early on >>>> (so that it can happen before scopeResolve), >>>> it sometimes changes the AST in odd ways. >>>> How should it add a global variable? >>>> (Is there a way to request that the module's >>>> init function be created, for example? Or >>>> should it be doing something else?) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -michael >>> >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> I did the work to relocate the code that inserts Module Init functions from >>> Parse >>> to Normalize. >>> >>> I was surprised to see that there is a test that fails but now I see that >>> it relies on LLVM. >>> Apparently we haven't done a run with LLVM since I completed that work. >>> >>> 1) I'd be happy to take on the work to apply the required changes to enable >>> the LLVM >>> build to work with this change. >>> >>> 2) Alternatively you might find it is not terribly hard. There is a fair >>> chance that you >>> will be able to replace "module->initFn->insertAtHead(result)" with >>> "module->block->insertAtHead(result)" >>> >>> >>> >>> By way of a little background: >>> >>> Historically the parser collected the statements in the source level code >>> in to the block >>> and then ran a final pass in which the AST for a "module init function" is >>> created and >>> the most of the original contents of the block were inserted in to the body >>> of that function >>> (there are a few exceptions). >>> >>> During Normalize, most of body of the init function was pulled back out to >>> the Module >>> level leaving only the code necessary to initialize the module-level >>> variables etc. >>> >>> The passes that ran between Parse and Normalize had to "be aware" that most >>> of the >>> module was buried inside inside the Module init function; as the function >>> you are considering >>> appears to do. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you are willing I'd like to propose that you take the first step at the >>> proposed change but >>> I will be very happy to take over if it is not a relatively simple change. >>> >>> With regards, >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Infragistics Professional >>>> Build stunning WinForms apps today! >>>> Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. >>>> Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future. >>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chapel-developers mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-developers >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Infragistics Professional >> Build stunning WinForms apps today! >> Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. >> Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future. >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Chapel-developers mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-developers >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Infragistics Professional > Build stunning WinForms apps today! > Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. > Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Chapel-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-developers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Infragistics Professional Build stunning WinForms apps today! Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls. Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Chapel-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-developers
