Hi Dave,
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
There's odd bits code scattered around in Sage that do tests for g95, which
is an old Fortran 95 compiler that in any modern Linux or Unix systems.
According to Wikipedia
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)
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)
On 09/12/10 12:10 AM, François Bissey wrote:
On 11 September 2010 21:48, Ondrej Certikond...@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
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 09/12/10 12:10 AM, François Bissey wrote:
On 11 September 2010 21:48, Ondrej Certikond...@certik.cz wrote:
When building femhub and packages for femhub, I have to deal with
these fortran issues as well. And
On 09/12/10 12:10 AM, François Bissey wrote:
+1 to move to FC.
I raised this back in November 2009 - William is against using FC.
http://www.mail-archive.com/sage-devel@googlegroups.com/msg31854.html
Dave
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 09/12/10 12:10 AM, François Bissey wrote:
On 11 September 2010 21:48, Ondrej Certikond...@certik.cz wrote:
When building femhub and
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 09/12/10 12:10 AM, François Bissey wrote:
+1 to move to FC.
I raised this back in November 2009 - William is against using FC.
http://www.mail-archive.com/sage-devel@googlegroups.com/msg31854.html
I read
On 09/12/10 12:10 AM, François Bissey wrote:
+1 to move to FC.
I raised this back in November 2009 - William is against using FC.
http://www.mail-archive.com/sage-devel@googlegroups.com/msg31854.html
I read the thread in question. I think more recent autotools don't check
fortran
There's odd bits code scattered around in Sage that do tests for g95, which is
an old Fortran 95 compiler that in any modern Linux or Unix systems.
According to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G95
gfortran was forked from g95 in 2003 - i.e. 7 years ago.
I'm not sure at what point
On 09/ 9/10 10:09 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
There's odd bits code scattered around in Sage that do tests for g95,
which is an old Fortran 95 compiler that in any modern Linux or Unix
systems.
Oops, I mean its an old compiler that you will not find on any modern system.
Since ATLAS is not
There's odd bits code scattered around in Sage that do tests for g95, which
is an old Fortran 95 compiler that in any modern Linux or Unix systems.
According to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G95
gfortran was forked from g95 in 2003 - i.e. 7 years ago.
That doesn't mean that
On 9 September 2010 10:23, François Bissey f.r.bis...@massey.ac.nz wrote:
There's odd bits code scattered around in Sage that do tests for g95, which
is an old Fortran 95 compiler that in any modern Linux or Unix systems.
According to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G95
gfortran was
13 matches
Mail list logo
