Hi Arjen:
On 2011-11-17 13:28+0100 Arjen Markus wrote:
[Alan wrote:]
>>> This whole thread has been about getting the STATIC_OPTS
>>> ON workaround for
>>> MinGW/gfortran to work, but I am wondering if that
>>> STATIC_OPTS ON
>>> workaround is really necessary any more?
>
> I tested this with gfor
Hi Alan,
here is a short update on the STATIC_OPTS issue:
>> Before you do that, could you just check with your
>> latest
>> MinGW/gfortran whether you can set STATIC_OPTS to OFF in
>> cmake/modules/TestF77CmdLine.cmake for the MinGW case?
>>
>> This whole thread has been about getting the STATI
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:51:33 -0800 (PST)
"Alan W. Irwin" wrote:
> On 2011-11-15 09:49+0100 Arjen Markus wrote:
>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> I have removed the platform-dependent files:
>
> I think you forgot to commit all of that. I finished
> the job with revision 12029.
Hi Alan,
ah, there was some
On 2011-11-15 09:49+0100 Arjen Markus wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> I have removed the platform-dependent files:
I think you forgot to commit all of that. I finished
the job with revision 12029.
> It turns out that the problem was due to the specific distribution
> of the gfortran compiler I had chosen
Hi Alan,
I have removed the platform-dependent files:
It turns out that the problem was due to the specific distribution
of the gfortran compiler I had chosen, not to the version.
(I still need to make a note of that in the release notes).
Anyway, I can proceed now with the renovation of the For
Hi Arjen:
On 2011-11-11 08:57+0100 Arjen Markus wrote:
> My conclusion right now [from my tests versus gfortran 4.5.x] is that
> gfortran 4.6.x is causing the trouble.
> We do not need anything more than the -Wl,--allow-multiple-define option
> by the way, so if all else fails, we can greatly si
Hi Alan,
On 2011-11-10 19:31, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2011-11-10 08:49+0100 Arjen Markus wrote:
>
>
> Have you ever tested the combination of CMake-2.8.x and MinGW before?
> I just realized that the -Wl,--allow-multiple-definition option has
> been automatically set in our
> cmake/modules/lan
On 2011-11-10 08:49+0100 Arjen Markus wrote:
> i Alan,
>
> On 2011-11-09 19:19, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>
>>
>> Is this the first time you have tested the MinGW version of gfortran
>> on Windows for our f95 examples using the "MinGw Makefiles" generator?
>> As I recall, I could not get those examples
i Alan,
On 2011-11-09 19:19, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>
> Is this the first time you have tested the MinGW version of gfortran
> on Windows for our f95 examples using the "MinGw Makefiles" generator?
> As I recall, I could not get those examples to work on MinGW/Wine for
> the "MSYS Makefiles" gener
Hi Arjen:
On 2011-11-09 12:59+0100 Arjen Markus wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have run into a strange problem with the Fortran 95 bindings.
> My platform is Windows XP (using MinGW, not MSYS) with gfortran as the
> Fortran compiler. The Fortran 77 bindings and examples work fine with
> that combination,
Hello,
I have run into a strange problem with the Fortran 95 bindings.
My platform is Windows XP (using MinGW, not MSYS) with gfortran as the
Fortran compiler. The Fortran 77 bindings and examples work fine with
that combination, but gfortran refuses to build the Fortran 95 examples.
The reason is
11 matches
Mail list logo
