[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fortran 90/95 support (autoconf)

From: Steven G. Johnson
Subject: Re: Fortran 90/95 support (autoconf)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:38:01 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Christian Marquardt wrote:
> I very much agree. I tried, though run into the problem that in the
> generated configure scripts shell variables got screwed up when using
> both the f77 and the f90 stuff. I'm not saying it can't (and shouldn't)
> be done. It's just me who is too stupid to sort things out. I apologize
> (and hope for help!!!)

You could just have an internal version of these macros,
e.g. _AC_FXX_WRAPPERS, that accepts an additional XX argument
(77/90/95), and uses that argument (unquoted) to construct variable names,
etcetera.  Similarly for some of the other macros.  AC_PROG_F77 should
just call AC_PROG_F90, etcetera, as I described earlier.

(Can we just assume that F77/F90/F95 have the same name-mangling, at
least, so that we only need AC_F77_WRAPPERS?)

> > I'm also skeptical of LD9[05]FLAGS.  Autoconf uses a single LDFLAGS for
> > every other language; why should F9[05] be different?
> LD9[05]FLAGS is only used if it has been set explicitely before,

If it's useful, we should have something like this for all languages; all
or nothing, I should think.

> -lf77compat is specified. Using LD90FLAGS on a Solaris platform gives me
> the opportunity to use both f77 and f90 applications in the same
> project, which is what I frequently do.

Note that LDFLAGS is the wrong place to put -lf77compat.  -lf77compat
should really go in LIBS; LDFLAGS is for -L<dir> and the like.

(By the way, AC_F77_LIBRARY_LDFLAGS is a misnomer for this reason; we
should really call it AC_F77_LIBRARIES or AC_F77_LIBRARY_LIBS.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]