On 11 September 2010 21:48, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: > When building femhub and packages for femhub, I have to deal with > these fortran issues as well. And I never understood > > a) why sage used g95 in the first place (yes I know it's smaller, but > it's not standard at all imho)
Agreed. I can't see the point of it. > b) all this mess with fortran --- lots of packages (like Trilinos) > simply fail to compile thanks to some setup in Sage/FEMhub due to > fortran/blas/atlas. It works in Ubuntu. > So I just want to give you a big thumbs up to make these fortran > issues less pain, and following standards more. > > Ondrej To follow "standards" in the lose sense of the word, we would drop the name SAGE_FORTRAN and instead use FC like other packages to indicate the path to a Fortran compiler. * We do not have SAGE_C, we use CC instead * We do not have SAGE_C_PLUS_PLUS - we use CXX instead * We DO use SAGE_FORTRAN, when everyone else uses FC now. That's a different issue though. Sage would need more changes to get rid of SAGE_FORTRAN. But it would be worth it in my opinion. Having a script as a compiler is a pain. One can''t see what options are passed to the code. BTW, POSIX does not mandate the use of CC, CXX or FC, but does contain a list of commonly used variables they suggest people do not use. FC is one of them. So whilst it is not a "standard", it is rather commonly used. 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
