Dave, On Sep 10, 6:48 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > On 09/10/10 07:36 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > So yes, it seems that g95 can be dropped this way, but this is a > > considerable amount of work. > > Dima, > > I would not waste any time on this - the gains do not warrant much work. indeed. > > > The amount of work would decrease if we drop MacOSX 10.4 from the list > > of supported OSes... > > It would not IMHO be a good idea to drop a platform over something as simple > as > this. I do believe there however no point in having g95 code in ATLAS as we > don't even install ATLAS on OS X.
But, as I said, gfortran integrated with Xcode's gcc is available at http://r.research.att.com/tools/#gcc42, so there is really no point in having g95 in Sage at all! My interest in this comes from the necessity to deal with it in CVXOPT, which should supply g95-specific setup (if g95 is kept). Dima > > But I'll leave that for another time. > > Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
