Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:30:34 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd64 vs x86_64 Message-ID: <20060122043034.GA3760@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20060122033939.82391.qmail@web32915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060122024915.GA3225@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20060122033939.82391.qmail@web32915.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 04:39:39AM +0100, pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com wrote: > > --- Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> ha scritto: > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:06:11AM +0100, pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > I wonder if anyone builds gcc without the port: > > > > I build gcc 10 to 20 times a week. This includes > > both the 4.1 branch and trunk. Configure automatically > > picks up the architecture. > > > > Hmm...I extracted the gcc40 port here and it didn't finish the build without > changing the arch to x86_64. Still it was very strange to find the same lines > on all the gcc4x ports. Build it from GCC sources. Don't use the gcc40. > > > I was building a preliminary g95 port. > > > > Have you tried gfortran? It is a part of GCC. I use 4.1 > > (pre-release) gfortran everyday. I routinely build and > > test gfortran from gcc trunk. > > > Yes. I'm in the process of porting Elmer: > http://www.csc.fi/elmer/ > Last week the Elmer developers were recommending g95 and even mentioned that > gfortran40 (which is the one of the ports tree) was not building Elmer. This > week they had problems with g95 and now they are recommending gfortran. Don't use gfortran40. You want at least 4.1 pre-release. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060122043034.GA3760>