| <!--===- docs/DesignGuideline.md |
| |
| Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. |
| See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. |
| SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception |
| |
| --> |
| # Design Guideline |
| |
| ```{contents} |
| --- |
| local: |
| --- |
| ``` |
| ## Documenting the design |
| |
| ### Designing support for a new feature |
| |
| When working on a new feature in flang, some design document should |
| be produced before submitting patches to the code. Note that new features |
| that need support in flang are listed in llvm github project |
| [Flang features to be implemented](https://github.com/orgs/llvm/projects/12). |
| |
| The preferred organization of such documents is: |
| 1) Problem description |
| 2) Proposed solution |
| 3) Implementation details overview |
| 4) Testing plan |
| |
| If several solutions can be considered, it is best to briefly describe the |
| alternate solutions in 2) and why they were not retained. |
| |
| The design document should be added to the `docs` folder as a markdown document, |
| ideally using the name of the feature as the document name. Its approval on |
| Phabricator is the pre-requisite to submitting patches implementing new |
| features. |
| |
| An RFC on flang https://discourse.llvm.org can first be made as one sees fit, |
| but this document should still be produced to summarize, organize, and formalize |
| the discussions. If a related discourse RFC was made it is a good idea to give a |
| link to it in the document for future reference. If no RFC was made before |
| sending the design document for review, it is highly encouraged to make a small |
| announcement on https://discourse.llvm.org with a link to the Phabricator |
| design document review. |
| |
| The Testing Plan should briefly describe what aspects will be tested with LLVM |
| unit test tools (see |
| [LLVM Testing Guide](https://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html)), and if some |
| existing end-to-end test suite or application can be used to validate the |
| feature implementation. |
| |
| Features impacting projects outside of flang (like work OpenMP or OpenACC that |
| may require touching parts outside of flang tree) should follow [the general |
| LLVM process](https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-a-major-change), |
| or the related subproject process. There should still be a related flang design |
| document if part of the solution impacts flang in significant ways (e.g. if the |
| changes in the code that lowers the parse-tree to OpenMP and FIR dialects are |
| not straightforwardly mapping parse-tree nodes to dialect operations). |
| |
| ### Updating the implementation solution of a feature |
| |
| When doing a significant change to the implementation solution for a feature, |
| the related design document should be updated so that it will justify the new |
| solution. |
| |
| ## Design tips |
| |
| ### Design document style |
| |
| The document does not have to be long. It is highly encouraged to: |
| - Stick to well-defined Fortran terms when talking about Fortran |
| (definitions of these terms can be found in Section 3 of Fortran 2018 |
| standard). |
| - Be precise (e.g., pointing to the standard reference or constraint numbers). |
| References should currently be given against the Fortran 2018 standard |
| version. |
| - Illustrate with a few small Fortran code snippets if applicable |
| - When dealing with lowering, illustrate lowering output with a few FIR |
| and LLVM IR code snippets. |
| - Illustrations do not have to be fully functional programs, it is better to |
| keep them small and focused on the feature. More detailed expectations |
| can be added in a second time or in parallel as LIT tests for example. |
| |
| ### Thinking through the design of a Fortran feature |
| |
| Below is a set of suggested steps that one can take to fully apprehend a |
| Fortran feature before writing a design for its implementation in flang. |
| |
| - Identify the relevant sections and constraints in the standard. |
| - Write Fortran programs using the feature and, if possible, |
| verify your expectations with existing compilers. |
| - Check if the related constraints (Cxxx numbers in the standard) are enforced |
| by semantic checks in the compiler. If not, it is a good idea to start by |
| adding the related checks (this does not require writing a design document). |
| - Identify if the feature affects compatibility with programs compiled by other |
| Fortran compilers, or if a given solution for flang could not be changed in |
| the future without breaking compatibility with programs previously compiled |
| with flang. It is not a goal to be 100% binary compatible with other |
| compilers outside of Fortran 77, but sources of incompatibility should be |
| known and justified. By binary compatibility, it is meant that F77 libraries |
| compiled with other Fortran compilers (at least gfortran) should link with |
| flang compiled code and vice-versa. |
| - Identify related features, or contexts that matter for the feature (e.g, |
| does being in an internal procedure, a module, a block⦠affect what should |
| happen?). |
| - Not everything has to be inlined code, delegating part of the work to the |
| Fortran runtime may be a solution. Identify the relevant Fortran runtime |
| API if any. |
| - For inlined code, consider what should happen when generating the FIR, |
| what should happen in the FIR transformation passes (FIR to FIR), |
| and what should happen when lowering the FIR to LLVM IR. |
| - For inlined ops, look at how the existing dialects can be reused. |
| If new FIR operations are required, justify their purpose. |
| - Look at the related representation in Semantics (e.g., is some information |
| from the parse tree, the Symbol or evaluate::Expr required? Are there tools |
| to query this information easily?). |