Re: F9x and unsupported FC

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Norman,

* Norman Gray wrote on Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:51:17PM CET:
> 
> I found Gary Kumfert's message 
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2004-12/msg00213.html>, in 
> which he says
> 
> >Why did support for FC disappear from libtool.m4 in my
> >"upgrade" from 1.5.4 to 1.5.10?
> 
> Aha!  This would be why I can't use F9x compilers with libtool, then...
> 
> Ralf Wildenhues explained, later in that thread, that FC support hadn't 
> ever been part of libtool, and that the Fortran maintainer had had to 
> withdraw.  Echoing Gary, this is indeed a pity, especially as the F77 
> interface is semi-deprecated in autoconf, in favour of the FC one (this 
> _is_ what we're talking about, isn't it?).

I think so.

> Gary (if you're still on this list): could I get a copy of the FC 
> support you patched in?

me too.  :)

> More generally: if Gary's fixes work OK, can they potentially go into 
> the libtool distribution (paperwork permitting) without there 
> necessarily being a formal Fortran Maintainer In Chief?

Most certainly.  We take anything that looks like an improvement here
and has no obvious drawbacks.

I don't think basic support for $FC would be difficult at all --
basically just let it do the same thing as for $F77.  I haven't seen
any further necessity for changes yet; for example, the Solaris 10
Fortran compiler seems to work fine with CVS Autoconf and Libtool, 
if used as $F77.

> I don't feel I could volunteer for this, but also I don't much want to
> maintain a branched local version

Completely understood.  Well-formed patches are fine even without any
dedication (save potential paperwork as you already mentioned).

> (I have enough headaches with a local automake!).

If you have time, I'd really give it another try to reconcile the
remaining differences you have with current Automake.   :)

Regards,
Ralf