On 9 September 2010 10:23, François Bissey <f.r.bis...@massey.ac.nz> wrote: >> There's odd bits code scattered around in Sage that do tests for g95, which >> is an old Fortran 95 compiler that in any modern Linux or Unix systems. >> >> According to Wikipedia >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G95 >> >> gfortran was forked from g95 in 2003 - i.e. 7 years ago. >> > > That doesn't mean that g95 stayed stagnant behind. OK so it is still > recommended to build it against gcc-4.0.3, but otherwise it is a fine compiler > and I have only switched to gfortran in the gcc-4.4.x series when it had all > the features that I needed for my work (outside of sage).
I realise that. >> William said here >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/1b6235b73834 >> 8000/d0f3efda8c0bcf0c?lnk=gst&q=g95+remove#d0f3efda8c0bcf0c >> >> "Probably the only platforms that get g95 are older OS X." >> >> Since ATLAS is not installed on OS X, it seems even less worthwhile having >> such a test in the ATLAS package. >> > > +1 > > Francois Glad you and other agree. It just seems a pain. There's odd bits of code related to g95 dotted around in Sage - several bits are written in perl. They just make maintenance harder to me. I've never liked the idea of using the variable SAGE_FORTRAN - I don't know why we can't use FC like all autoconf packages do. We don't have a SAGE_CC or a SAGE_CXX - we use the standard variables. Why should Fortran be any different? But SAGE_FORTRAN aside, having specific tests for g95 seem a bit pointless. Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
