On 2010-04-19 11:01 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > Sounds interesting, but something to pay attention to with such an > effort is the other effort that was going on with the science ports, > to make all of them use a common compiler (they chose gcc43) because > you don't want programs linking with each other if they were compiled > for different versions of the gcc libraries. Apparently this is known > to cause the universe, or at least those trying to use the software, > to explode. I'm concerned that, using this proposed new fortran > compiler portgroup, you might at one point in time be building things > with one compiler, because that one happens to be installed, and then > at some later time you might install a newer compiler (e.g. gcc45) > and from then on ports would start compiling with that, leading to > gcc library mismatches. Maybe that's not an issue for Fortran like it > is for C, but perhaps we consider a similar mechanism for the C > compiler, or perhaps the mechanism you develop is not specific to > Fortran.
I am aware that there are different name mangling options for Fortran, which make libraries incompatible between g95 and gfortran. But if there are further issues then I agree that it is a bad idea. Probably a port group for these science related ports wouldn't be a bad idea as that would make it easier to switch the compiler at one place (still requires revision bumps of course). Rainer _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
