On Dec 30, 2008, at 7:13 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>> > > g95 is a gfortran fork which used to be better in the gcc 4.0/4.1 > timeframe, but has seriously fallen behind gfortran these days IMHO. > But I am not a Fortran compiler expert, so some people might disagree. > I would strongly vote for getting rid of all Fortran binaries in Sage > except for the OSX ones since they do cause problems. Using the system > provided gfortran, g95 or g77 does work as well and we have one fewer > source of pain. It does require some fixing of the Fortran runtime > detection used in Sage, but I meant to clean that up anyway. gfortran is much better than g95. I'd recommend including gfortran instead of g95 if you don't eliminate the fortran compiler. I filed a Radar some time ago to include Fortran on OS X for the dev tools, but it seems to have got lost. I may open a new one. Cheers, Tim. --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo http://www.linkedin.com/in/timlahey --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
