On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Tim Lahey <tim.la...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 30, 2008, at 7:13 PM, mabshoff wrote: > >>> >> >> g95 is a gfortran fork which used to be better in the gcc 4.0/4.1 >> timeframe, but has seriously fallen behind gfortran these days IMHO. >> But I am not a Fortran compiler expert, so some people might disagree. >> I would strongly vote for getting rid of all Fortran binaries in Sage >> except for the OSX ones since they do cause problems. Using the system >> provided gfortran, g95 or g77 does work as well and we have one fewer >> source of pain. It does require some fixing of the Fortran runtime >> detection used in Sage, but I meant to clean that up anyway. > > > gfortran is much better than g95. I'd recommend including gfortran > instead > of g95 if you don't eliminate the fortran compiler. I filed a Radar some > time ago to include Fortran on OS X for the dev tools, but it seems to > have got lost. I may open a new one.
Including gfortran instead of g95 is not an option since the gfortran binary is at least 10 times the size of the g95 binary, and we have to include several binaries for different architectures and bitsizes. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
