Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 09:10:27 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Removal of Fortran from the base system Message-ID: <20060527161027.GB7307@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20060527011519.P23860@orthanc.ca> References: <20060527024407.GA2525@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <D65FE4A4-0975-465D-807A-9F7FF93763C8@orthanc.ca> <20060527035306.GH744@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <672BC9B0-5BE8-41CF-B5F0-5E00DD686A54@orthanc.ca> <20060527042517.GA3503@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20060527011519.P23860@orthanc.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 01:20:13AM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > >g77 is dead, gone, not available with GCC 4.1.1. gfortran is > >is, IMHO, a good compiler but it has warts and bugs. Maintaining > >it in the tree will slow down the availability of bug fixes. > >Relegating it to ports will allow patches and bug fixes to be > >incorporate at a much higher rate. > > Okay, this I can buy. How does GCC 4.1 get along with the output of f2c? > While it's not optimal, an f77 built on it would preserve the existing > functionality if g77 dies. > First, there is the -ff2c switch. Second, if it is Fortran and g77 can compile it, then gfortran should be able to compile it without problems. If you want to see a performance comparison of gfortran 4.1 with other compilers, see http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/benchmark/polyhedron05.html -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060527161027.GB7307>