Benny Siegert <bsiegert%gmail.com@localhost> writes: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> wrote: >> No, the main argument is that it interacts badly with the rest of the >> system because gfortran isn't a Fortran compiler, but a full version of >> GCC with a random set of languages. As such, it forces its own version >> of libgcc_s, libstdc++ and whatever into the search path. G95 at least >> only craps the libgcc_s into the search path and that could even be >> killed moderately easy. > > Maybe. But we are already using a pkgsrc gcc on a number of platforms. > How does the answer change if we had something like "do not use g95 if > using pkgsrc gcc, instead use that Fortran compiler"? That might well be good, but there's work to be done. We have been discussing how to use a consistent compiler to start with, and that seems poised to perhaps actually finally happen after the branch. As Joerg said, a key point is to try to use the same compiler version for everything. If we are building a compiler anyway, we seem to get gfortran and using the matching gfortran seems like an easy win. It may also be possible to just build 4.8 from pkgsrc on machines with 4.8, to get gfortran. Or maybe base should provide it, but we almost certainly aren't going to pull that up to 7. (6 doesn't matter, since pkgsrc will build a compiler anyway. And 7 might build 4.9.)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature