> On 11 September 2010 21:48, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: > > When building femhub and packages for femhub, I have to deal with > > these fortran issues as well. And I never understood > > > > a) why sage used g95 in the first place (yes I know it's smaller, but > > it's not standard at all imho) > > Agreed. I can't see the point of it. > > > b) all this mess with fortran --- lots of packages (like Trilinos) > > simply fail to compile thanks to some setup in Sage/FEMhub due to > > fortran/blas/atlas. It works in Ubuntu. > > > > So I just want to give you a big thumbs up to make these fortran > > issues less pain, and following standards more. > > > > Ondrej > > To follow "standards" in the lose sense of the word, we would drop the > name SAGE_FORTRAN and instead use FC like other packages to indicate > the path to a Fortran compiler. > > * We do not have SAGE_C, we use CC instead > * We do not have SAGE_C_PLUS_PLUS - we use CXX instead > * We DO use SAGE_FORTRAN, when everyone else uses FC now. > > That's a different issue though. Sage would need more changes to get > rid of SAGE_FORTRAN. But it would be worth it in my opinion. Having a > script as a compiler is a pain. One can''t see what options are passed > to the code. > > BTW, POSIX does not mandate the use of CC, CXX or FC, but does contain > a list of commonly used variables they suggest people do not use. FC > is one of them. So whilst it is not a "standard", it is rather > commonly used. > +1 to move to FC.
surely you meant: "they suggest people use" rather than "do not use"? François -- 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
