There is a [good?] g77 port built into egcs-1.1.1, although I have never
used it.
Why would gcc-2.8.x be the stock compiler versus the [better?] egcs-1.1.x?
C++ comes along for free in all it's glory.
Tom Veldhouse
ve...@visi.com
If it is decided that Fortran support will disappear from the
...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu;
curr...@freebsd.org curr...@freebsd.org; obr...@nuxi.com obr...@nuxi.com
Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: removing f2c from base distribution
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 09:29:38AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote:
* The g77-0.5.19(.1
If it is decided that Fortran support will disappear from the base
system and nobody else wants to maintain g77, I will gladly do it.
However, I will only maintain a version that I am using so that means I
will maintain a port once gcc 2.8 is officially brought in as the stock
compiler.
Lets
Getting g77 from egcs is the best option right now. However, it seems to
me that this adds a lot of bloat (duplication of C, C++, etc.) to the
system for someone wanting to use FreeBSD as a scientific workstation
platform.
Then update the g77 port to fetch egcs-core-XYZ.tar.gz and
Chuck Robey wrote:
I'm not sure if this argument is worth pushing anymore, because
FreeBSD's stability and usefulness has become much more well known, but
it did contribute at some point, and I think that is the idea that
Daniel was trying to convey.
Right?
Me? No... Maybe Garret... :-)
...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu; freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: removing f2c from base distribution
David O'Brien wrote:
I've got a Bmaked contribified version of EGCS, but didn't do g77. So
maybe a consensus should be made what to do
Mark Murray wrote:
David O'Brien wrote:
I've got a Bmaked contribified version of EGCS, but didn't do g77. So
maybe a consensus should be made what to do about FORTRAN in the base
system.
If you are collecting votes, please add mine; I feel quite strongly
(knowing the scientists that
* From: Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
* g77 is a frontend to the FSF compiler backend, and thus it is bound
* to specific versions. So, it could become a support nightmare to ensure
* a g77 port is in sync with the egcs backend in the base distribution.
I don't think it
* The biggest problem has been that the port of g77 has not worked
* properly for quite some time and in fact is currently marked as
* broken. I would anticipate that this situation would not change much in
That (and bug fix issues, as DavidO contends) all depends on the
commitment of the
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, RT wrote:
I highly doubt that I'll ever use FORTRAN directly or indirectly. If it's
not used by a vast majority, it should be optional...
So the problem seems to be that 'included in the system' is a problem
because the system gets unwieldy in terms of junk a lot of
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 05:14:33AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote:
* The biggest problem has been that the port of g77 has not worked
* properly for quite some time and in fact is currently marked as
* broken. I would anticipate that this situation would not change much in
That (and bug fix
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:44:33 +0900, Daniel C. Sobral d...@newsguy.com
said:
A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
be different?
Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O
Um, I'm still alive but can someone explain me why this can't be a
regular port? Being useful to some but not the majority, no other
parts of the system depending on it, this looks like a model citizen
in the ideal ports world. :)
Because we loose control over it. There is a move to
* From: Garrett Wollman woll...@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu
* A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
* be different?
*
* Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
Maybe that's because Berkeley Unix never had (until recently, anyway)
a ports
A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
be different?
Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
And they have /always/ included games. Next issue.
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current
* From: Glenn Johnson gjohn...@nola.srrc.usda.gov
* Your points are well taken. I had a local port of g77 that built
* against our current gcc. I never submitted it however for a couple
* of reasons:
*
* 1. The port I had was for 0.5.19. This will build against our current
*gcc, but
Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:44:33 +0900, Daniel C. Sobral d...@newsguy.com
said:
A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
be different?
Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
Somehow I feared you might have said
Satoshi Asami wrote:
* From: Glenn Johnson gjohn...@nola.srrc.usda.gov
* Your points are well taken. I had a local port of g77 that built
* against our current gcc. I never submitted it however for a couple
* of reasons:
*
* 1. The port I had was for 0.5.19. This will build against
Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:44:33 +0900, Daniel C. Sobral d...@newsguy.com
said:
A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
be different?
Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
Didn't Berkeley Unix also include a
* The g77-0.5.19(.1) is *extremely* out-of-date. It should be dropped from
* the ports collection, and if someone wants to use g77, then they should
* install egcs.
*
* The newer versions of g77 do not work with gcc-2.7.2.x. The author of
* g77 states that you shouldn't even try to back
Satoshi Asami wrote:
* The g77-0.5.19(.1) is *extremely* out-of-date. It should be dropped from
* the ports collection, and if someone wants to use g77, then they should
* install egcs.
*
* The newer versions of g77 do not work with gcc-2.7.2.x. The author of
* g77 states that you
* Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Glenn got g77-0.5.19 to
* work with our gcc-2.7.x. g77 is now at version 0.5.24. Those
* micro numbers are significant changes, and these represent over
* a years work on g77.
No, I misunderstood. So Glenn got 0.5.19 to work, but it's very old.
In message 36af4948.d0f88...@newsguy.com, Daniel C. Sobral writes:
Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:44:33 +0900, Daniel C. Sobral d...@newsguy.com
said:
A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
be different?
Because Berkeley Unix has /always/
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 09:29:38AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote:
* The g77-0.5.19(.1) is *extremely* out-of-date. It should be dropped from
* the ports collection, and if someone wants to use g77, then they should
* install egcs.
*
* The newer versions of g77 do not work with
Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
Maybe we should put Franz Lisp back in.
bash-2.02$ uname -sr
FreeBSD 3.0-RELEASE
bash-2.02$ lisp
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.92
-
-- Richard
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in
: A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
: be different?
For g77, because it is integrated with the C compiler. The system has
a lower maintenance cost if it is included.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in
From: Daniel C. Sobral d...@newsguy.com
A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
be different?
Right on. If anything, I'd like to see the ports system continue
its evolution to becoming able to build nearly any component of the
system. (including patched kernel
Garrett Wollman writes:
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:44:33 +0900, Daniel C. Sobral d...@newsguy.com
said:
A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
be different?
Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
So FreeBSD v12.4, released
Nate Williams wrote:
A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
be different?
Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
And they have /always/ included games. Next issue.
Mmmm... can I get a VAX port going with this argument? :-)
--
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Nate Williams wrote:
A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
be different?
Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
And they have /always/ included games. Next issue.
Well,
Ladies and Gents,
I have completed the portification of f2c and its support library.
Who is going to pick this up? Last time I volunteered, Jordan balked at
the idea.
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Ladies and Gents,
I have completed the portification of f2c and its support library.
Who is going to pick this up? Last time I volunteered, Jordan balked at
the idea.
I was among the people that asked Steve to do the work; I'd have no
trouble with you doing the
Mike Smith wrote:
Ladies and Gents,
I have completed the portification of f2c and its support library.
Who is going to pick this up? Last time I volunteered, Jordan balked at
the idea.
I was among the people that asked Steve to do the work; I'd have no
trouble with you doing
Ladies and Gents,
I have completed the portification of f2c and its support library.
Who is going to pick this up? Last time I volunteered, Jordan balked at
the idea.
I was among the people that asked Steve to do the work; I'd have no
trouble with you doing the
I was among the people that asked Steve to do the work; I'd have no
trouble with you doing the integration/extraction. You might just
want to check that the recent alpha-related changes that were submitted
for f2c are covered in the portified version.
This might be a good time to bring
David O'Brien wrote:
I was among the people that asked Steve to do the work; I'd have no
trouble with you doing the integration/extraction. You might just
want to check that the recent alpha-related changes that were submitted
for f2c are covered in the portified version.
This might
Each Makefile under the ports systems contains a maintainer line. I
do not think it unreasonable for someone to send patchs directly to the
maintainer.
Except that some maintainers dissapear, and maintainers w/o commit
abilities still have to get someone to update the port for them.
--
--
David O'Brien wrote:
Each Makefile under the ports systems contains a maintainer line. I
do not think it unreasonable for someone to send patchs directly to the
maintainer.
Except that some maintainers dissapear, and maintainers w/o commit
abilities still have to get someone to update
* From: David O'Brien obr...@nuxi.com
* Alternately, I guess we could just have the code live in
* /usr/ports/lang/f2c/src/, but I don't know if Satoshi wants /usr/ports
* to expand like that.
Eek. I don't think people will appreciate the ports collection
suddenly exploding in size with
* From: Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
* Yes, I recognize that this is problem. A partial solution might
* be anoncvs to a shadow tree of the master ports repository. Only
* those ports in the shadow tree which satisfy portlint and make;
* make install; make package would
Satoshi Asami wrote:
* From: Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
* Yes, I recognize that this is problem. A partial solution might
* be anoncvs to a shadow tree of the master ports repository. Only
* those ports in the shadow tree which satisfy portlint and make;
* make
I'm not currently balking at the idea of you picking it up - by all
means, feel free! :)
Just also remember that Peter will at some point be doing an egcs
upgrade, so if that has issues for fortran they should be worked
out at this time.
- Jordan
Ladies and Gents,
I have completed the
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Just also remember that Peter will at some point be doing an egcs
upgrade, so if that has issues for fortran they should be worked
out at this time.
On this matter, I found out the other day that eg++-compiled binaries are not
binary-compatible
* Well, actually I did f2c as a port, and it does indeed fit
* inside the ports paradigm. Please, see my original email in
* the thread.
Yes, I know that. I was just wondering why people would want it
otherwise.
Satoshi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe
I'm not currently balking at the idea of you picking it up - by all
means, feel free! :)
Roger Wilco, Ok-dokey, good deal. :)
Just also remember that Peter will at some point be doing an egcs
upgrade, so if that has issues for fortran they should be worked
out at this time.
Steven?
Nate
Nate Williams wrote:
Just also remember that Peter will at some point be doing an egcs
upgrade, so if that has issues for fortran they should be worked
out at this time.
Steven?
egcs contains g77 and egcs can be configured to be built with or
without g77. My port of f2c, libf2c, and
Um, I'm still alive but can someone explain me why this can't be a
regular port? Being useful to some but not the majority, no other
parts of the system depending on it, this looks like a model citizen
in the ideal ports world. :)
Because we loose control over it. There is a move to push
Satoshi Asami wrote:
* Well, actually I did f2c as a port, and it does indeed fit
* inside the ports paradigm. Please, see my original email in
* the thread.
Yes, I know that. I was just wondering why people would want it
otherwise.
My original email provided an opportunity to
The question is whether Peter wants to include g77, and whether
people would see this as bloat. I know g77 outperforms f2c+gcc
on my real-world benchmarks by a significant margin.
A good question, is how easy it is to download egcs-g77-1.1.1.tar.gz and
build it into something workable
David O'Brien wrote:
Um, I'm still alive but can someone explain me why this can't be a
regular port? Being useful to some but not the majority, no other
parts of the system depending on it, this looks like a model citizen
in the ideal ports world. :)
Because we loose control over it.
David O'Brien wrote:
The question is whether Peter wants to include g77, and whether
people would see this as bloat. I know g77 outperforms f2c+gcc
on my real-world benchmarks by a significant margin.
A good question, is how easy it is to download egcs-g77-1.1.1.tar.gz and
build it into
David O'Brien wrote:
I've got a Bmaked contribified version of EGCS, but didn't do g77. So
maybe a consensus should be made what to do about FORTRAN in the base
system.
If you are collecting votes, please add mine; I feel quite strongly
(knowing the scientists that I do that use Fortran) that
David O'Brien wrote:
I've got a Bmaked contribified version of EGCS, but didn't do g77. So
maybe a consensus should be made what to do about FORTRAN in the base
system.
If you are collecting votes, please add mine; I feel quite strongly
(knowing the scientists that I do that use
Mike Smith wrote:
David O'Brien wrote:
I've got a Bmaked contribified version of EGCS, but didn't do g77. So
maybe a consensus should be made what to do about FORTRAN in the base
system.
If you are collecting votes, please add mine; I feel quite strongly
(knowing the scientists
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:06:44PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
The question is whether Peter wants to include g77, and whether
people would see this as bloat. I know g77 outperforms f2c+gcc
on my real-world benchmarks by a significant margin.
A good question, is how easy it is to
Ladies and Gents,
I have completed the portification of f2c and its support library.
In principle, src/usr.bin/f2c, src/lib/{libI77,libF77,libf2c}, and
src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/f77 can be moved into the attic in -current (4.x).
Appropriate adjustments to the Makefile files in src/usr.bin,
src/lib, and
56 matches
Mail list logo
