Re: Unable to build math/blas

[Jan Danielsson <jan.m.danielsson%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 07/06/17 15:24, Dr. Thomas Orgis wrote:
>>    From reading about the differences between g95 and gfortran, it looks
>> like gfortran is even less likely to support >=fortran95, but I'll try
>> setting PKGSRC_FORTRAN=gfortran and see if there's a difference.
> 
> Where are you reading?! Gfortran is what you build modern Fortran with
> if you don't use a proprietary vendor compiler (not sure how
> Open64 fares these days). It does F95 and also most of F2003, F2008.
> Last I checked, g95 is not actively developed anymore.

   Oh.  :)

   I just googled "g95 gfortran differences" and first result I read was
a google groups archive where someone asked exactly what I was
wondering.  The answer specifically mentioned that gfortran was much
better at optimization, but not post-f77 features.

   Though the post was pretty old, so I probably should have looked up
something more recent.  Because I so rarely encounter Fortran, I have
gotten the wrong impression that it's pretty stagnant.  I'm realizing
now that's not at all the case.

> Flang may be interesting for clang users, but the default for a
> GCC-based system surely should be gfortran nowadays.

   Hmm..  This has been brought up several times before:
https://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2016/09/08/msg023703.html

   pkgsrc apparently defaults to g95 for reasons of portability.  Is
this still true?  (If g95 isn't actively maintained, maybe people put
efforts into increasing portability of gfortran?).

-- 
Kind regards,
Jan Danielsson