Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] In what way is our gfortran install broken?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] In what way is our gfortran install broken?
  • Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 19:24:46 +0200

On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 04:13:28AM +0200, Thomas Orgis wrote:
> Am Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:32:09 +0200
> schrieb Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>:
>
> > The spec file is there so that the gcc frontend knows how to compile
> > fortran programs (by calling gfortran). This is the same for all split
> > gcc spells. In a normal setup where the whole suite is compiled at once,
> > the specfile is built at compiletime including all that information.
>
> Well, but obviously _something_ is wrong with our install in that area...
> or are you able to compile a .f95 source file without forcing -xf95?
> Does automatic preprocessing work for a .F90 file?
>
> (I am aware of not very many people actually using gfortran...)

I haven't tried in a while. The spec file definitely mentions f95
extension, but it's possible that it needs to change due to a newer gcc.
Maybe I can take a look at the spec included in the sources this weekend
to check if there's anything new missing from our setup.

--
Arwed v. Merkatz Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
http://www.sourcemage.org



  • Re: [SM-Discuss] In what way is our gfortran install broken?, Arwed von Merkatz, 07/02/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page