On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 05:31:40PM -0700, Toby Peterson wrote: > > Given current reality, you're probably better off contributing to > llvm-gfortran... or better yet, a native fortran front-end for llvm. > FSF gcc is barely relevant on our platform these days. > > - Toby
Toby, I created the fink llvm/llvm-gcc42 packages to provide them with a llvm-gfortran. However the gfortran in llvm-gcc42 is just that (locked at the gcc 4.2.1 release because it was the last GPLv2 release that Apple will accept). It has much worse performance than the current gfortran in gcc 4.4.0, has fewer features and significant portions of the newer features aren't working properly. The chances of llvm-gcc being updated to a newer release are basically zero and there is no clang related fortran compiler at all. You work with the hand your dealt...and for us that is trying to keep the wheels on FSF gcc for darwin as long as possible. Actually gcc 4.4.1 has excellent testsuite results on darwin10. Also look at... http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg18166.html http://archive.netbsd.se/?ml=fink-devel&a=2009-03&m=10250229 where I benchmarked the various gcc compilers on Intel darwin. Lastly, if you check the table at... http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/gcc-trunk/benchmark/ you will see how really bad it would be to have to rely on g95 even if it built on darwin10 (almost 3 times slower than current gfortran). Jack _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
