libtool
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: F9x and unsupported FC


From: Gary Kumfert
Subject: Re: F9x and unsupported FC
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:31:14 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> Hi Gary,
>
> * Gary Kumfert wrote on Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:06:17PM CEST:
> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > * Norman Gray wrote on Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:51:17PM CET:
> > > >
> > > > 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
>
> It'd be really nice to see this in form of a patch (or several ones)
> together with some ChangeLog-like entries describing the changes.
> But see below.

Fair enough.  I'll try to keep better notes next time.

> > 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.
>
> A cursory look showed basically these changes (latter ones AIX-related):
> - $FC support which mostly mirrors $F77 support
> - one of which might be a bugfix (re aix_use_runtimelinking for tag
>   F77 vs CC)
> - one looks like a babel-specific hack to enable aix_use_runtimelinking
>   always when enable_shared.
> - an additional flag runtime_linking_flag abstracting -brtl, and a
>   libtool link flag `-dynamic' enabling this.  This change looks very
>   bogus and wrong, as -brtl is a configure-time decision in Libtool, and
>   also `-dynamic' would be the default mode on most architectures.
>   It shows, however, the need for some action here.

Lol!  Remember my disclaimer above...

I agree there's a mismatch between how Babel and Libtool interpret
AIX peculiarities.  If there's a more effective way to use Libtool
to accomplish on AIX what I already do on other UNIXen, I'd love to
discuss.

Regards,

Gary

> Cleaned up, the first two look basically fine for Libtool.  But I would
> really, really suggest these patches for branch-2-0 of Libtool or higher
> only, because only then is it possible to leave out support for some
> tags.  People complain enough that their C-only project suddenly looks
> for a C++ compiler (and even fails without one), we don't want another
> tag in branch-1-5.
>
> For branch-2-0, the first patch would basically need a more-or-less
> rewrite (copying from the current F77 support again).  I will look at
> the second one.
>
> If you don't have time to produce individual patches, I can just post
> the `diff -u' output.
>
> Thanks for sharing,
> Ralf
>




reply via email to

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