On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:27, Jack Howarth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 should have added that you are far more likely to eventually > see a fortran compiler on llvm via FSF gcc with a llvm compiler plugin. > The recently added GPLv3 exemption for compiler plugins allows > FSF's gcc's front and middle ends to use llvm without tainting > either's licenses. There is some discusson of this but I wouldn't > expect anything before gcc 4.6 or later. Starting from scratch to > implement a fortran compiler will take many years (as it did for the > g95 code base to mature into a fully integrated gfortran compiler).
I don't care... although your claim that it'd take "many years" is a little silly. - Toby _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
