On Tuesday 12 December 2006 19:35, you wrote: > Regarding the use of gfortran -- are you aware that g77 and gfortran > produce object code with somewhat incompatible ABIs? See my previous > emails on this topic here:
Yes, I am aware. Since there is neither a fortran policy nor a good record of best practice (different packages use gfortran or g77 randomly. That's why I mentioned Gfortran so prominently in the changelog. However, I feel it's also important to mention the following. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends 'netcdfg-dev' -s Package /var/lib/apt/lists/http.us.debian.org_debian_dists_etch_main_source_Sources > netcdf_packages.txt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends 'g77' -s Package /var/lib/apt/lists/http.us.debian.org_debian_dists_etch_main_source_Sources > g77_packages.txt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ join -j 2 netcdf_packages.txt g77_packages.txt | wc -l 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ join -j 2 netcdf_packages.txt g77_packages.txt | awk '{print $1}' grace grace6 kst I think it is safe to say that the g77 bindings of the netcdf library are only possibly used by those 3 packages. KST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/kst/kst-1.3.1$ find . -name '*.f*' -o -name '*.F*' ./kst/tests/healpix/healpix_example_sm.fits ./configure.files There's no fortran in kst, it seems. Grace: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/grace/grace-5.1.20$ find . -name '*.f*' -o -name '*.F*' ./grace_np/testf_np.f ./examples/logistic.fit One fortran 77 file. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/grace/grace-5.1.20$ grep -i nf_ ./grace_np/testf_np.f NetCDF appears to not be used in Grace as all netcdf APIs begin with nf_ in the f77 binding. Grace6: Same story as for grace above. No NetCDF used in fortran77 files. > Unfortunately it seems that no one is yet endeavoring to make sure there > is a reasonable transition plan for libraries from g77 to gfortran. > (Possibly I will try to do something about this post-etch, if I have > time and once gfortran supports all the g77 intrinsics.) For that > reason I recommend that all FORTRAN libraries, when possible, be > compiled with g77 for the moment. > > If netcdf does not have any functions returning REAL (single-precision) > or COMPLEX, maybe building netcdf with gfortran is OK though. I don't think that this problem should hold back netcdf as the majority of modern fortran use of netcdf requires the f90 bindings. G77 does not include support for f90 and I feel it is a disservice to the scientific users to not include the f90 support. I also feel that the results of the above research indicate that there will be no fallout with packages in the main archive with regard to compiling the netcdf lib with gfortran. I think that we should just go for it. W00T! Comments? wt -- Warren Turkal, Research Associate III/Systems Administrator Colorado State University, Dept. of Atmospheric Science -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]