bug#8635: Some Fortran files don't have the extensions automake wants

[Peter Williams]

Hi Stefano,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 14:11 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> severity 8635 wishlist
> thanks
> 
> On Saturday 07 May 2011, Peter Williams wrote:
> > I'm working on wrapping a large, preexisting piece of Fortran code with
> > an Autotools-based build system. The code is written in Fortran 90 and
> > uses ".for" for the file extension. Unfortunately, automake ...
> >
> I assume you are using automake 1.11.1, right?

Yes.

> Please try the attached patch (against the v1.11.1 tag in the automake git
> repository).  I *think* it should solve your problem for what concerns
> automake.  However, note that the GNU Fortran Compiler will still consider
> `*.for' files to be Fortran 77 by default, so you'll have to instruct it
> to explicitly assume free-form Fortran 90 input, with .e.g.:
> 
>   $ ./configure FCFLAGS='-ffree-form -x f95' LDFLAGS='-x none'
> 
> This solution is probably not the best one, and is certainly not pretty,
> but it should work.  If you can come up with a more general one, I'd be
> happy to hear about it.

This does work. Do you think this change would be applied to released
versions of automake, though? I don't think developers would be too
happy about needing to run a custom-patched version of automake.

I was thinking that there could be an Autoconf macro called 

AM_ALIAS_SOURCE_EXTENSION([.for],[.f90])

that would mutate the %extension_map variable to treat .for files the
way that .f90 files are normally treated. It looks like this could
happen in &scan_autoconf_traces. I don't have a good enough
understanding of the automake internals to know whether this would be a
simple change or whether that would affect a lot of other things,
though.

Peter


> 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> 
> HTH,
>   Stefano

-- 
Peter Williams / address@hidden
Department of Astronomy, UC Berkeley