Peter O'Gorman wrote:
[]
The g95 situation means that, due to the nature of the GPL, anything
built with g95 becomes GPL licensed.
Do you have an official word from the g95 authors on this or is this
just speculation? Normally, the output of a GPL compiler does not
automatically have to be
On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 08:31 +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
What the long term prospects of g95 and gfortran are, nobody knows. But
right now, g95 just works better than gfortran.
There are issues with g95 that may affect the binary distribution. The
runtime libraries are licensed under the GPL
On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 12:47 +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
[]
The g95 situation means that, due to the nature of the GPL, anything
built with g95 becomes GPL licensed.
Do you have an official word from the g95 authors on this or is this
just speculation? Normally,
Martin,
Have you tried the current gcc 4.1 branch from snapshot or svn?
I would avoid gcc 4.2 for now since it is so far from release. However
there are a huge number of fixes in the 4.1 branch for gfortran since
the 4.1.0 release. They might have backported the MacIntel changes
into that
Jack Howarth wrote:
I am wondering why packages like fftw3 are depending on g95
rather than gfortran? While this may be useful in the short term
I think we would be far better off with gfortran in the long run.
As far as I know the g95 source still is devoid of a decent test
suite so there
I am wondering why packages like fftw3 are depending on g95
rather than gfortran? While this may be useful in the short term
I think we would be far better off with gfortran in the long run.
As far as I know the g95 source still is devoid of a decent test
suite so there is no good way to
