On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:12:27PM -0600, Ronald G Minnich wrote: > William Josephson wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:50:28PM -0600, Ronald G Minnich wrote: > > > >>no, I don't completely agree. We need gcc for general use, period. > >>Unless we like living in a cardboard box in an alley forever. > > > > > >Are you mostly concerned about support for gcc language extensions > >or about support for things like C++? > > I hate to say it, but in the scientific computing world, you either do > gcc compatibility, 100%, or you run gcc, or you don't get used. That's > it. Many companies we deal with had to do extensive work to their > compilers to get apps to run, i.e. they had to make them gcc-compatible. > It's sad, I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
I truly share your sentiment because that's exactly what I hear from my customers as well. Now, what's interesting is -- are you talking about Fortran scientific apps or something else ? Because if fortran is anywhere to be found than surely these guys must use something else rather than gcc at least occasionally. After all, up until 2004 fortran support in gcc used to be a total joke. > I'm really tired of telling people how nice plan 9 is, then having them > ask me how to compile xyz, and having to tell them they have to do a > port. That's pretty much where their interest ends. Could you give examples of such apps, or are they internal ? > But, in many ways, plan 9 is an ideal kernel for HPC. It's just that the > out-of-kernel picture is not great, since we lack gcc or gcc-compatible > compilers. I'm curious. Tell me more. See my earlier question to Latchesar. Thanks, Roman.
