From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 21 00:47:41 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C8F1065670; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:47:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E88B8FC14; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:47:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 4so1219964eyf.9 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:47:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WPkbpP1VeTe/q0VirFKfD3yu0ZZiGbVkp8gnNsiwNls=; b=VCb0Lsmi+qlYzm5QU1Xq6+SJXyRjoIRtUhgH40wGh/WQJPrNQbg1z9cTqv2WhwD40z kJ7bOhEjpFfH1Cnvqx0LuZqBcM6yfyZwVmBwilWgeEhtjFYUWHt/tN3hQVzRjJx8SDXX QPFuYEXfehHuO4xBqujGBU3VMW9+bZNV6OTxk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=P1/1ZPEoLbO9YE/5ySI7tO4jBurkOMDdyw1rhOJX9EwYLvjVzNJiIRMEE0fKHRYc9F nGwGXW+yiIIk69zqKyrRWsbW/C3GaltdcQGyEmLB1+sxJtrlwCqTDmPiYAXfDuCpE3tB Wn0Al+JqACG4pToCm8aChP13reQIjvd4sCteo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.85.7 with SMTP id t7mr2259380wee.122.1261356459395; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:47:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:47:39 -0500 Message-ID: From: "b. f." To: Anton Shterenlikht Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, gerald@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: g95 as a system fortran compiler? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:47:41 -0000 >I think the lack of a fortran compiler in the base OS is >a significant minus of an otherwise very general OS. The decision to remove the Fortran compiler from the base system was made long ago, and will probably not be reversed now. There is no Fortran code in the base system, and Fortran is needed only by a minority of users. >I understand that gfortran is not an ideal choice for >many reasons, not least that it doesn't build on ia64. Yes, it's unfortunate that the gcc maintainers discontinued support for a number of architectures. But maybe someone will step forward and fix it? Or llvm? In the meantime, why don't you ask gerald@ to make the default Fortran compiler on ia64 the latest version of gfortran that will still work on that architecture? You can do it yourself by making some small local patches to ports/Mk/bsd.gcc.mk, and to the relevant lang/gcc4X port, while you are waiting for him ... >I think g95 could be a better choice for the following >reasons: It's shortcomings have already been pointed out by others. b.