On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Dr. David Kirkby > <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: >> On 09/12/10 12:10 AM, François Bissey wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> +1 to move to FC. >>> >>> surely you meant: "they suggest people use" rather than "do not use"? >>> >>> François >>> >> >> No, I said what I meant. >> >> CC/CXX/FC are not standards as mandated by the Unix standard. So the Unix >> standard does not suggest you use them. What they suggest you do is to not >> use commonly used variables for anything else. This is what what is said. >> >> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/basedefs/xbd_chap08.html >> >> >> "It is unwise to conflict with certain variables that are frequently >> exported by widely used command interpreters and applications:" >> >> That list includes CC, CXX and FC. >> >> >> So its agreed FC is widely use - why the hell does Sage have to be any >> different? > > I would use FC. > > As to gfortran on the Mac --- my understanding is that the > fortran*.spkg package contains the binary of g95 for all supported > architectures in the g95 dir. It also contains gfortran binary in the > gfortran/ directory. > > I researched how to get a decent working gfortran binary on the Mac, > but I didn't find anything useful, only http://hpc.sourceforge.net/. > > One more question about Mac --- how do you install gcc in there? Using > xcode? So I would just ship gfortran binary that is compatible with > gcc on the Mac somehow, and be done with it, and require it on linux, > which I think is not a problem these days.
Btw, I just found this: http://r.research.att.com/tools/ so I tried it on the Mac (bsd.math) and the gfortran seems to be working fine. So once I have some time, I'll try to rework the fortran.spkg package for femhub to install the above fortran binary and see if I can compile everything with it. If I succeed, you can then try it for Sage as well. Ondrej -- 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
