Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 13:26:40 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> Cc: fortran@freebsd.org Subject: Re: math/slatec - worth fixing deleted language features? Message-ID: <20130720202640.GA68466@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <201307201737.r6KHbjSS009228@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> References: <201307201737.r6KHbjSS009228@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 > (2) try updating deleted (and obsolete) language constructs, No. Do nothing. If the warnings bother you, add FFLAGS+=-w or FFLAGS+=-std=legacy to the Makefile. > (3) spawn another port, with > no deleted or obsolete features, but with little testing? Do nothing. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130720202640.GA68466>