* De: Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-11-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: __sF ]
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 05:40:08PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=1755928
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 03:29:04AM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
* De: Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-11-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: __sF ]
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 05:40:08PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You should be linking against the -stable
* De: Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-11-03 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: __sF ]
As to my particular problem, a cross-platform
environment won't be of much use because NAG
hard-coded several paths into their app, e.g.,
/usr/bin/cc.
Then you should seriously consider the quality
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:28:24AM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
* De: Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-11-03 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: __sF ]
As to my particular problem, a cross-platform
environment won't be of much use because NAG
hard-coded several paths into their app, e.g
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Juli Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Then you should seriously consider the quality of such application, or
: whether you'd be better using it on an actual and supported platform.
:
: Anything less would be uncivilised. (Seriously)
Sometimes you
* De: Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-11-03 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: __sF ]
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:28:24AM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
* De: Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-11-03 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: __sF ]
As to my particular problem, a cross-platform
In both cases, FreeBSD doesn't seem to like __sF.
This is being discussed /ad nauseam/ on the lists. If you are running
CURRENT, the onus is on you to keep up with developments. :-)
Now, the first time this happened, I simply cvsuped a couple days
later and the problem went away,
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Mark Murray wrote:
In both cases, FreeBSD doesn't seem to like __sF.
This is being discussed /ad nauseam/ on the lists. If you are running
CURRENT, the onus is on you to keep up with developments. :-)
True. A few days after the first time I encountered this
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:35:03AM -0500, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
So is the current position on the matter that __sF is going to remain out
of libc?
Yes.
Kris
msg45920/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 09:47:26AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:35:03AM -0500, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
So is the current position on the matter that __sF is going to remain out
of libc?
Yes.
This will break some commercially available software that
can't
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:10:31AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
This will break some commercially available software that
can't easily replaced.
kargl[248] f95 -V a.f90
NAGWare Fortran 95 compiler Release 4.2(468)
Copyright 1990-2002 The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
f95comp
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:58:41AM -0800, Will Andrews wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:10:31AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
This will break some commercially available software that
can't easily replaced.
kargl[248] f95 -V a.f90
NAGWare Fortran 95 compiler Release 4.2(468)
Copyright
I seriously doubt that NAG will support both a
4.x and 5.x version of their compiler.
This shouldn't be a problem. The commercial software Should Not Be(tm)
supporting something as variable as CURRENT, and with the STABLE libraries
around in COMPAT mode, the compiler Will Just Work(tm) (or
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 07:06:47PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
I seriously doubt that NAG will support both a
4.x and 5.x version of their compiler.
This shouldn't be a problem. The commercial software Should Not Be(tm)
supporting something as variable as CURRENT, and with the STABLE
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 11:24:32AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 07:06:47PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
I seriously doubt that NAG will support both a
4.x and 5.x version of their compiler.
This shouldn't be a problem. The commercial software Should Not Be(tm)
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 07:06:47PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
I seriously doubt that NAG will support both a
4.x and 5.x version of their compiler.
This shouldn't be a problem. The commercial software Should Not Be(tm)
supporting something as variable as CURRENT,
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:00:42PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 11:24:32AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
No, it does not just work. The NAG f95 compiler generates a
C file. The C file is compiled by gcc.
f95 -o a a.f90
is equivalent to
f95 -c -o a.c
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:06:38PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
This is also solveable by setting a strategic symlink from libc.so -
/usr/lib/compat/libc.so.4 in the f95 backend's search path.
Does it do a gcc -o a a.c -L /usr/local/lib/f95 -lf96 -lm -lc or something
like that? If so, you can
By the time __sF is mainstream, I guess the vendor will have adapted
their product to match. Win, win.
No, it does not just work. The NAG f95 compiler generates a
C file. The C file is compiled by gcc.
How about much effort? there _has_ to be some kind of way to
specify which C
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 08:42:35PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
By the time __sF is mainstream, I guess the vendor will have adapted
their product to match. Win, win.
No, it does not just work. The NAG f95 compiler generates a
C file. The C file is compiled by gcc.
How about
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Mark Murray wrote:
This shouldn't be a problem. The commercial software Should Not Be(tm)
supporting something as variable as CURRENT, and with the STABLE libraries
around in COMPAT mode, the compiler Will Just Work(tm) (or should with
not much effort).
By the time __sF
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 06:15:09PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Mark Murray wrote:
This shouldn't be a problem. The commercial software Should Not Be(tm)
supporting something as variable as CURRENT, and with the STABLE libraries
around in COMPAT mode, the compiler Will
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 06:15:09PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
This isn't the case for one piece of vendor software that I'm not allowed
to talk about.
See the new WANT_COMPAT4_STDIO make.conf knob.
This won't be acceptable as the vender will likely
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:22:38PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
The verbose compiler output is below. Note,
that the crt* files are also 5.x instead of
4.x. Maybe it's just good fortune, but NAG's
f95 compiler works great on 5.x (except for
the __sF snafu).
Yes. The knob may help you now,
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 06:36:31PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 06:15:09PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
This isn't the case for one piece of vendor software that I'm not allowed
to talk about.
See the new
* De: Matthew N. Dodd [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-11-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: __sF ]
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 06:15:09PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
This isn't the case for one piece of vendor software that I'm not allowed
to talk about
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 04:19:10PM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
Keep in mind this only affects linking a closed library, and that this
situation is a bit absurd, given that a reasonable solution exists, and
if necessary, can be packaged up nicely...
A bit absurd? Can you explain why it is
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 09:47:26AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
: On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:35:03AM -0500, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
:
: So is the current position on the matter that __sF is going to remain out
:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=1755928+1759974+/usr/local/\
: www/db/text/2002/freebsd-current/20021013.freebsd-current
You should be linking against the -stable versions of these items as
well as the
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 06:15:09PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
: On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Mark Murray wrote:
: This shouldn't be a problem. The commercial software Should Not Be(tm)
: supporting something as
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Maybe I misunderstand you. But, a person running FreeBSD 5.x,
: who wants to runs this vendor's 4.x software, will need to
: build their libc with WANT_COMPAT4_STDIO defined if this
: product needs to see __sF.
All
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 03:58:14PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
See the new WANT_COMPAT4_STDIO make.conf knob.
This won't be acceptable as the vender will likely not be producing a
separate 5.0 build (ie the same build needs to run on both.) until 4.x is
EOLed. Forcing people to
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 03:58:14PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
See the new WANT_COMPAT4_STDIO make.conf knob.
This won't be acceptable as the vender will likely not be producing a
separate 5.0 build (ie the same
33 matches
Mail list logo
