Re: F9x and unsupported FC

[Gary Kumfert]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> 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.  :)

Its bundled in my research project, Babel, version 0.10.*.
        http://www.llnl.gov/CASC/components/software.html

I use it to mix, C, C++, F77, F90, Java, & Python in a single address space
(no messaging or interpreted middleware). We run on Linux,
OSX, AIX, and maybe still Solaris.  Make check takes hours!

> > 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.

This is roughly what I did.  However, I only did the minimal possible
to get it to work for me (I was crunching for a release).  You may
want to review my changes... my understanding of libtool isn't *that*
deep.

> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
>