On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Norman, > > * Norman Gray wrote on Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:51:17PM CET: > > > > I found Gary Kumfert's message > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2004-12/msg00213.html>, in > > which he says > > > > >Why did support for FC disappear from libtool.m4 in my > > >"upgrade" from 1.5.4 to 1.5.10? > > > > Aha! This would be why I can't use F9x compilers with libtool, then... > > > > Ralf Wildenhues explained, later in that thread, that FC support hadn't > > ever been part of libtool, and that the Fortran maintainer had had to > > withdraw. Echoing Gary, this is indeed a pity, especially as the F77 > > interface is semi-deprecated in autoconf, in favour of the FC one (this > > _is_ what we're talking about, isn't it?). > > I think so. > > > Gary (if you're still on this list): could I get a copy of the FC > > support you patched in? > > me too. :)
Its bundled in my research project, Babel, version 0.10.*. http://www.llnl.gov/CASC/components/software.html I use it to mix, C, C++, F77, F90, Java, & Python in a single address space (no messaging or interpreted middleware). We run on Linux, OSX, AIX, and maybe still Solaris. Make check takes hours! > > More generally: if Gary's fixes work OK, can they potentially go into > > the libtool distribution (paperwork permitting) without there > > necessarily being a formal Fortran Maintainer In Chief? > > Most certainly. We take anything that looks like an improvement here > and has no obvious drawbacks. > > I don't think basic support for $FC would be difficult at all -- > basically just let it do the same thing as for $F77. I haven't seen > any further necessity for changes yet; for example, the Solaris 10 > Fortran compiler seems to work fine with CVS Autoconf and Libtool, > if used as $F77. This is roughly what I did. However, I only did the minimal possible to get it to work for me (I was crunching for a release). You may want to review my changes... my understanding of libtool isn't *that* deep. > > I don't feel I could volunteer for this, but also I don't much want to > > maintain a branched local version > > Completely understood. Well-formed patches are fine even without any > dedication (save potential paperwork as you already mentioned). > > > (I have enough headaches with a local automake!). > > If you have time, I'd really give it another try to reconcile the > remaining differences you have with current Automake. :) > > Regards, > Ralf > > > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool > _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool