Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 00:59:53 +0100 (BST) From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> To: mexas@bris.ac.uk, sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu Cc: fortran@freebsd.org Subject: Re: math/slatec - worth fixing deleted language features? Message-ID: <201307202359.r6KNxrKO009979@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <20130720202640.GA68466@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu Sat Jul 20 23:23:52 2013 > >On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 06:37:45PM +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: >> Anybody uses math/slatec? > >I don't use it currently. When I was actively contributing to >gfortran (to ensure that gfortran worked on FreeBSD), I fed >routinely fed slatec into gfortran looking for bugs. > >> This is a collection of >1400 f77 routines. >> The problem is that there is no upstream anymore, >> and the code has deleted features, e.g.: > >(snip) > >> Fixing each individual deleted feature is not that hard. > >There is nothing to fix. You will be hard pressed to find >a Fortran, which works on FreeBSD, that does not support >the deleted features used by slatec. > >> In addition, there is a risk of introducing new bugs. >> The library, as it is, is supposed to be thoroughly tested. > >This is why compilers still support the deleted features. Code >written 50 years will still compile and work. > >> >> So I'll asking for opinions on what to do >> with math/slatec; (1) nothing - leave as it is, > >yes ok, thanks Anton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201307202359.r6KNxrKO009979>