Re: Patch for Portland compiler support

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:30:27PM CET:
> Actually, before I attempt the LT 2.x patch, how does this look for the 
> 1.5 patch?  I checked pgcc, pgCC, pgf77, and pgf90, both in the 1.5 
> test suite (I assuming that configuring LT with CC=pgcc [etc.] and then 
> "make check" is what is necessary?) and with a small sample automake 

Yes, that should be fine.

> package that I made explicitly for testing porpoises.  All seems to be 
> working properly.

Great!

> Could someone who is Wise in the Ways of Libtool tell me if this patch 
> looks ok?  I did [at least] one questionable thing: in the Linux linker 
> section, I had to check for pgf77 or pgf90, because, contrary to the PG 
> documentation, pgf77 and pgf90 need an additional "-fpic" in their 
> linker command to create a shared library properly.

Is this necessary for just a regular shared library or for a shared
module (that can be loaded with dlopen)?  If the former, then I think
your patch is ok.

Glancing at libtool.m4, there are a number of cases where it's
necessary, maybe we should put them in a separate variable, like
pic_link_flag or so.  That'll only be for libtool HEAD, though.

> I'm also CC'ing the PG support team to see if they have any input.

They should update their documentation.  :-)

> Here's the revised patch (including some fixes from this morning; based 
> on tests, not the PG documentation ;-) ):

Note that branch-2-0 tests are somewhat more challenging, esp. on the
Fortran front.  I might want to wait with applying this patch until you
get to those (in case you find out more necessary stuff there).
Other than that, I'll take the patch.

Regards,
Ralf