Jack Howarth wrote:
I am wondering why packages like fftw3 are depending on g95
rather than gfortran? While this may be useful in the short term
I think we would be far better off with gfortran in the long run.
As far as I know the g95 source still is devoid of a decent test
suite so there is no good way to monitor breakage in g95. Also
I believe recent benchmarks have shown that the gfortran code is
starting to make gains over g95 code in performance.
Jeff may have other reasons, but one reason is that there is no gfortran
package for intel yet. Gfortran on intel has to be built from the
gcc-4.2 sources, and while this seems to give a working gfortran, a
large part of the rest of gcc-4.2 does not build and other parts are
very buggy. So it is not quite clear what kind of gfortran package
should be provided in the 10.4 tree.
I have a gcc4 package in my exp directory that gives me a working
gfortran on intel. I haven't run any test suites, though; I just tested
it by compiling some of the finite element packages that I maintain.
What the long term prospects of g95 and gfortran are, nobody knows. But
right now, g95 just works better than gfortran.
--
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
