Hi Norman, * Norman Gray wrote on Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:51:17PM CET: > > I found Gary Kumfert's message > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2004-12/msg00213.html>, in > which he says > > >Why did support for FC disappear from libtool.m4 in my > >"upgrade" from 1.5.4 to 1.5.10? > > Aha! This would be why I can't use F9x compilers with libtool, then... > > Ralf Wildenhues explained, later in that thread, that FC support hadn't > ever been part of libtool, and that the Fortran maintainer had had to > withdraw. Echoing Gary, this is indeed a pity, especially as the F77 > interface is semi-deprecated in autoconf, in favour of the FC one (this > _is_ what we're talking about, isn't it?).
I think so. > Gary (if you're still on this list): could I get a copy of the FC > support you patched in? me too. :) > More generally: if Gary's fixes work OK, can they potentially go into > the libtool distribution (paperwork permitting) without there > necessarily being a formal Fortran Maintainer In Chief? Most certainly. We take anything that looks like an improvement here and has no obvious drawbacks. I don't think basic support for $FC would be difficult at all -- basically just let it do the same thing as for $F77. I haven't seen any further necessity for changes yet; for example, the Solaris 10 Fortran compiler seems to work fine with CVS Autoconf and Libtool, if used as $F77. > I don't feel I could volunteer for this, but also I don't much want to > maintain a branched local version Completely understood. Well-formed patches are fine even without any dedication (save potential paperwork as you already mentioned). > (I have enough headaches with a local automake!). If you have time, I'd really give it another try to reconcile the remaining differences you have with current Automake. :) Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
