Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 15:08:55 -0600 From: Glenn Johnson <gljohns@bellsouth.net> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fortran conundrum Message-ID: <199812222108.PAA36858@gforce.johnson.home> In-Reply-To: Message from Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> of "Mon, 21 Dec 1998 22:49:19 PST." <199812220649.WAA46833@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote: > As I promised Mike Smith, I have been looking over the Fortran situation > in -current. From the last round of email, we had essentially 3 > opinions: > > (1) Status quo > > f77 (f2c+gcc) works for the majority of those who use Fortran. If > someone wants more speed, power, or features, then they can choose > to install gcc_2.8.x and g77+0.5.23, egcs-1.1.1, or purchase a > commericial product. > I have some Fortran programs that will not compile with f2c+gcc but compile fine with g77. The converse is also true however, but not as much. sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote: > (2) Upgrade to g77 -- g77 produces "better" code than f2c+gcc, and it is > designed to integrate smoothly with the core compiler technology when an > upgrad finally occurs. > I find that g77 meets my needs more than f2c+gcc, so I would like to see g77 brought into the FreeBSD distribution when the upgrade to gcc2.8.x occurs. I have been using egcs-1.1.1 and that meets my needs. sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote: > (3) Rip Fortran out of the base distribution. > This doesn't sound good to me. Wouldn't it be better to have g77 integrated in. Fortran is still important enough that it should be in the base distribution, IMHO. -- Glenn Johnson gljohns@bellsouth.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812222108.PAA36858>