On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:44, Brian Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 22, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Toby Peterson wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:08, Jack Howarth <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 03:02:00PM -0700, Toby Peterson wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 14:43, Brian Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The llvm/clang community appears to have nobody / very few people >>>>> interested >>>>> in implementing a Fortran front-end >>>> >>>> Only one way to change that... >>> >>> I suspect a careful review of the gfortran progress will show >>> that it only gained traction when programmers contracted to improve >>> it came on board. Expecting a 'grass-roots' fortran project to >>> viable is a bit unrealistic. Only if FSF gcc became unbuildable >>> on darwin might a company feel the need to expend funds on such >>> a project. >> >> In that case let's hope it becomes unbuildable sooner rather than later. > > Or, perhaps let's hope that people exist with motive, means and opportunity > to contribute to gcc and keep it working on OS X, and are able to do so. I > would rather not lose future updates to the only fast, free Fortran compiler > on OS X. I cannot comprehend why you wish for some of us to lose our tools > with no fast, free replacement even vaguely in sight.
gcc 4.4 will continue to work, and in the meantime development on a viable llvm-based replacement can proceed. Seems quite straightforward to me. - Toby _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
