tech-pkg archive

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

Re: Fortran support

Greg Troxel <> writes:

> Aleksej Saushev <> writes:
>> Have we come to some sort of consensus on what should be contemporary
>> Fortran compiler nowadays, "g95" or "gfortran"? We have support for it
>> almost in place for about a quarter, now it's time to make a decision.
>> If noone speaks up with any reasonable arguments, I'll make conservative step
>> and make "g95" the default.
> I have no objections, but I don't understand enough about what you're
> proposing.  I would expect that we currently have several fortran
> compilers in tree, and that there are several flavors of fortran (which
> probably should be viewed as different languages).
> Are you talking about the mapping from USE_LANGUAGES to packages, and
> specifically what the default is if the user doesn't express it?
> Could you explain a bit more how things are and what if anything you are
> proposing to change?

Things are these: all packages that can work with F77 were converted to
"USE_LANGUAGES"  containing "fortran77", "fortran" is now reserved for
more modern Fortran. Currently, there're no packages that utilise this
separation, and in fact, "fortran" and "fortran77" are synonymous for now.
But I have heard wishes to import packages that require F90 at least,
I have changes in my local tree that switch to using "g95" for packages
that use "fortran" rather than old "fortran77", and I propose to commit
these changes.

From user point of view, noone is writing in F77 nowadays, there're more
and more software packages that break compatibility with F77 and convert
either to F90 (at least) or F95.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index