[certik]

The original author of LFortran. Great question.

We designed LFortran to first "raise" the AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) to ASR (Abstract Semantic Representation). The ASR keeps all the semantics of the original code, but it is otherwise as abstract/simple as possible. Thus by definition it allows us to do any optimization possible, as ASR->ASR optimization pass. We do some already, we will do many more in the future. This optimizes all the things where you need to know the high level information about Fortran. Then once we can't do any more optimizations, we lower to LLVM. If in the future it turns out we need some representation between ASR and LLVM, such as MLIR, we can add it.

We also have a direct ASR->WASM and WASM->x64 machine code, and even direct ASR->machine code, but the ASR->LLVM backend is the most advanced, after that probably our ASR->C backend and after that our ASR->WASM backend.

[throwaway17_17]

How does LLVM cope with the array semantics? I was under the impression that the noalias attribute in the IR was not activated in such a way as to enable the optimizations that make Fortran so fast.

[certik]

My experience with LLVM so far has been that is possible to get maximum speed as long as we generate the correct and clean LLVM IR, and do many of the high level optimizations ourselves.

If LLVM has any downsides, it is that it is hard to run in the browser, so we don't use it for https://dev.lfortran.org/, and that it is slow to compile (both LLVM itself, as well as it makes LFortran slow to compile, compared to our direct WASM/x64 backends). But when it comes to runtime performance of the generated code, LLVM seems very good.

[fooker]

LLVM is awesome if you emit what it expects (basically IR as close to what clang emits).

The further you stray from that, the worse is it.

[galangalalgol]

Rust drove the fixes needed in llvm to support noalias. They went through a couple reverts before seemingly fixing everything. If lfortran emits noalias, llvm can probably handle it now.

[bradrn]

> We designed LFortran to first "raise" the AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) to ASR (Abstract Semantic Representation) …

I’ve actually never heard of an ASR before… sounds very interesting! Do you happen to have any resources I can read about this?

[csjh]

WASM -> x64 as in a full WASM AOT compiler? Don't those already exist? What's the benefit to making one specifically for LFortran? Unless I'm misunderstanding

Super cool stuff though

[certik]

Yes, we could make the WASM->x64 standalone. The main motivation is speed of compilation. We do not do any optimizations, but we want to generate the x64 binary as quickly as possible, with the idea that it would be used in Debug mode, for development. Then for Release mode you would use LLVM, which is slow to compile, but good runtime performance. And since we already have ASR->WASM backend (used for example at https://dev.lfortran.org/), maintaining WASM->x64 is much simpler than ASR->x64 directly.

[lmm]

I think the question was why maintain your own WASM->x64 at all though? Couldn't you just run an existing WASM->x64 tool (using -O0 or equivalent if the goal is quick compilation for debug mode)?