On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Simon Urbanek wrote: > On Jan 27, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Paul Roebuck wrote: > > > I continue to hear Apple's branch has broken gfortran, though never > > hear specifically what is broken about it. > > It doesn't compile - that's what's broken :). My impression is that > there is quite a bunch of new pieces and changes in the C back-end > code that were shared by the gfortran, but the fortran part was not > updated correspondingly. I tried to patch some of the holes, but > didn't get very far. Maybe if someone has the spare time to trace all > the changes individually in both the FSF and Apple branch could put > it together... > > > I don't mind filing a bug report with them too > > The problem is Apple doesn't support gfortran and never did. The > ability to compile gfortran from the Apple branch was just incidental > and required some tweaking as well (basically manually enabling f95 > in the build script and patching together fat gfortran libraries), > but it was harmless. When you ask them, they say "use f2c" (but R > doesn't support that).
I guess what I find odd about [gfortran not compiling] is that no one seems to mention that in the Apple mailing list over the last couple months. <http://lists.apple.com/archives/fortran-dev/2006/Jan/> ---------------------------------------------------------- SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) _______________________________________________ R-SIG-Mac mailing list [email protected] https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac
