Hi Stefano, Thanks for your prompt reply.
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 14:11 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > severity 8635 wishlist > thanks > > On Saturday 07 May 2011, Peter Williams wrote: > > I'm working on wrapping a large, preexisting piece of Fortran code with > > an Autotools-based build system. The code is written in Fortran 90 and > > uses ".for" for the file extension. Unfortunately, automake ... > > > I assume you are using automake 1.11.1, right? Yes. > Please try the attached patch (against the v1.11.1 tag in the automake git > repository). I *think* it should solve your problem for what concerns > automake. However, note that the GNU Fortran Compiler will still consider > `*.for' files to be Fortran 77 by default, so you'll have to instruct it > to explicitly assume free-form Fortran 90 input, with .e.g.: > > $ ./configure FCFLAGS='-ffree-form -x f95' LDFLAGS='-x none' > > This solution is probably not the best one, and is certainly not pretty, > but it should work. If you can come up with a more general one, I'd be > happy to hear about it. This does work. Do you think this change would be applied to released versions of automake, though? I don't think developers would be too happy about needing to run a custom-patched version of automake. I was thinking that there could be an Autoconf macro called AM_ALIAS_SOURCE_EXTENSION([.for],[.f90]) that would mutate the %extension_map variable to treat .for files the way that .f90 files are normally treated. It looks like this could happen in &scan_autoconf_traces. I don't have a good enough understanding of the automake internals to know whether this would be a simple change or whether that would affect a lot of other things, though. Peter > > > Thanks, > > > > Peter > > > > HTH, > Stefano -- Peter Williams / pwilli...@astro.berkeley.edu Department of Astronomy, UC Berkeley
