On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 21:40 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Hmm... I don't like this solution either; it still sounds a little too
hackish, and to me it seems wrong to have to declare project policy
decisions that are system-independent and relevant only for automake
(in this case, the policy
severity 8635 wishlist
thanks
On Saturday 07 May 2011, Peter Williams wrote:
I'm working on wrapping a large, preexisting piece of Fortran code with
an Autotools-based build system. The code is written in Fortran 90 and
uses .for for the file extension. Unfortunately, automake ...
I assume
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for your prompt reply.
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 14:11 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
severity 8635 wishlist
thanks
On Saturday 07 May 2011, Peter Williams wrote:
I'm working on wrapping a large, preexisting piece of Fortran code with
an Autotools-based build system. The
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, May 09, 2011 at 02:11:53PM CEST:
--- a/automake.in
+++ b/automake.in
@@ -939,7 +939,7 @@ register_language ('name' = 'f77',
'lder' = 'F77LD',
'ld' = '$(F77)',
'pure' = 1,
-'extensions' =
Hi Ralf.
On Monday 09 May 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, May 09, 2011 at 02:11:53PM CEST:
--- a/automake.in
+++ b/automake.in
@@ -939,7 +939,7 @@ register_language ('name' = 'f77',
'lder' = 'F77LD',
'ld' = '$(F77)',
I'm working on wrapping a large, preexisting piece of Fortran code with
an Autotools-based build system. The code is written in Fortran 90 and
uses .for for the file extension. Unfortunately, automake thinks that
.for files are Fortran 77 code, so the wrong compiler gets used and
chokes on the F90
