With each year that goes by, the need to address this issue in autoconf
and automake increases. We need to make a decision, especially since
people keep submitting patches with conflicting strategies.
Kate Hedstrom wrote:
> It seems to me that the compiler name of $F77 is unfortunate in that
> it
I should also add that I'm willing to implement this in autoconf (say
next weekend; I'll be gone this week) if Akim et al. agree that it (or
something similar) is the way to go.
Regarding automake, I would think that the ordinary behavior would be to
use $F77 for {.f, .F, .for, .f77} and $FXX f
With each year that goes by, the need to address this issue in autoconf
and automake increases. We need to make a decision, especially since
people keep submitting patches with conflicting strategies for this issue.
Kate Hedstrom wrote:
It seems to me that the compiler name of $F77 is unfortuna
Steven G. Johnson wrote:
(1) Have two compilers, F77 and FXX, where the former tries to be F77
(i.e. the current behavior) while the latter is selected by
AC_PROG_FXX([year], [search-list]), where year is YY or with YY < 54
interpreted as 20YY, and with the default year being the latest suppo
Sorry to come (very) late to this thread, I was just reading back
through the archives...
Allan Clark wrote:
This almost argues for a change to a generic function in AC_CHECK_LIB.
Do we ever have a need for an AC_CHECK_LIB() to check C libraries using
a raw code snippet? AC_CHECK_LIB(,functionc
