.org ; obr...@nuxi.com
Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: removing f2c from base distribution
>On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 09:29:38AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote:
>> * The g77-0.5.19(.1) is *extremely* out-of-date. It should be dropped
from
>> * the ports collection, an
There is a [good?] g77 port built into egcs-1.1.1, although I have never
used it.
Why would gcc-2.8.x be the stock compiler versus the [better?] egcs-1.1.x?
C++ comes along for free in all it's glory.
Tom Veldhouse
ve...@visi.com
>If it is decided that Fortran support will disappear from the bas
Chuck Robey wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if this argument is worth pushing anymore, because
> FreeBSD's stability and usefulness has become much more well known, but
> it did contribute at some point, and I think that is the idea that
> Daniel was trying to convey.
>
> Right?
Me? No... Maybe Garret..
> Getting g77 from egcs is the best option right now. However, it seems to
> me that this adds a lot of bloat (duplication of C, C++, etc.) to the
> system for someone wanting to use FreeBSD as a scientific workstation
> platform.
Then update the g77 port to fetch egcs-core-XYZ.tar.gz and
egcs-g7
> If it is decided that Fortran support will disappear from the base
> system and nobody else wants to maintain g77, I will gladly do it.
> However, I will only maintain a version that I am using so that means I
> will maintain a port once gcc 2.8 is officially brought in as the stock
> compiler.
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Nate Williams wrote:
> >
> > > > A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
> > > > be different?
> > >
> > > Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
> >
> > And they have /always/ included games. N
Nate Williams wrote:
>
> > > A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
> > > be different?
> >
> > Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
>
> And they have /always/ included games. Next issue.
Mmmm... can I get a VAX port going with this argum
Garrett Wollman writes:
> <
> said:
>
>
> > A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
> > be different?
>
> Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
So FreeBSD v12.4, released in 2026, had better include a FORTRAN
compiler, because Berk
From: "Daniel C. Sobral"
>
> A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
> be different?
>
Right on. If anything, I'd like to see the "ports" system continue
its evolution to becoming able to build nearly any component of the
system. (including patched kernel builds an
: A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
: be different?
For g77, because it is integrated with the C compiler. The system has
a lower maintenance cost if it is included.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in
> Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
Maybe we should put Franz Lisp back in.
bash-2.02$ uname -sr
FreeBSD 3.0-RELEASE
bash-2.02$ lisp
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.92
->
-- Richard
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" i
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 09:29:38AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * The g77-0.5.19(.1) is *extremely* out-of-date. It should be dropped from
> * the ports collection, and if someone wants to use g77, then they should
> * install egcs.
> *
> * The newer versions of g77 do not work with gcc-2.7
In message <36af4948.d0f88...@newsguy.com>, "Daniel C. Sobral" writes:
>Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>
>> <
>> said:
>>
>> > A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
>> > be different?
>>
>> Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
>
>Somehow I fear
* Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Glenn got g77-0.5.19 to
* work with our gcc-2.7.x. g77 is now at version 0.5.24. Those
* micro numbers are significant changes, and these represent over
* a years work on g77.
No, I misunderstood. So Glenn got 0.5.19 to work, but it's very old.
Anyth
Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * The g77-0.5.19(.1) is *extremely* out-of-date. It should be dropped from
> * the ports collection, and if someone wants to use g77, then they should
> * install egcs.
> *
> * The newer versions of g77 do not work with gcc-2.7.2.x. The author of
> * g77 states that
* The g77-0.5.19(.1) is *extremely* out-of-date. It should be dropped from
* the ports collection, and if someone wants to use g77, then they should
* install egcs.
*
* The newer versions of g77 do not work with gcc-2.7.2.x. The author of
* g77 states that you shouldn't even try to back po
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> <
> said:
>
>
> > A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
> > be different?
>
> Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
>
Didn't Berkeley Unix also include a Pascal compiler?
--
Steve
finger ka...@troutmask.apl.w
Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * From: Glenn Johnson
>
> * Your points are well taken. I had a local port of g77 that built
> * against our current gcc. I never submitted it however for a couple
> * of reasons:
> *
> * 1. The port I had was for 0.5.19. This will build against our current
> *
Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
> <
> said:
>
> > A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
> > be different?
>
> Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
Somehow I feared you might have said that... :-)
All things considered, though, it just doesn't
* From: Glenn Johnson
* Your points are well taken. I had a local port of g77 that built
* against our current gcc. I never submitted it however for a couple
* of reasons:
*
* 1. The port I had was for 0.5.19. This will build against our current
*gcc, but g77 has advanced significant
> > A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
> > be different?
>
> Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
And they have /always/ included games. Next issue.
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-c
* From: Garrett Wollman
* > A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
* > be different?
*
* Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
Maybe that's because Berkeley Unix never had (until recently, anyway)
a ports system? :)
Satoshi
To Unsub
> > Um, I'm still alive but can someone explain me why this can't be a
> > "regular" port? Being useful to some but not the majority, no other
> > parts of the system depending on it, this looks like a model citizen
> > in the ideal ports world. :)
>
> Because we loose control over it. There is
<
said:
> A lot of people use a lot of things out of ports. Why should Fortran
> be different?
Because Berkeley Unix has /always/ included a FORTRAN compiler.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
woll...@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fire
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 05:14:33AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * The biggest problem has been that the port of g77 has not worked
> * properly for quite some time and in fact is currently marked as
> * broken. I would anticipate that this situation would not change much in
>
> That (and bug f
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, RT wrote:
> I highly doubt that I'll ever use FORTRAN directly or indirectly. If it's
> not used by a vast majority, it should be optional...
So the problem seems to be that 'included in the system' is a problem
because the system gets unwieldy in terms of junk a lot of peo
* The biggest problem has been that the port of g77 has not worked
* properly for quite some time and in fact is currently marked as
* broken. I would anticipate that this situation would not change much in
That (and bug fix issues, as DavidO contends) all depends on the
commitment of the maint
* From: Steve Kargl
* g77 is a frontend to the FSF compiler backend, and thus it is bound
* to specific versions. So, it could become a support nightmare to ensure
* a g77 port is in sync with the egcs backend in the base distribution.
I don't think it would be that much of a support nightm
Mark Murray wrote:
>
> "David O'Brien" wrote:
> > I've got a Bmaked contribified version of EGCS, but didn't do g77. So
> > maybe a consensus should be made what to do about FORTRAN in the base
> > system.
>
> If you are collecting votes, please add mine; I feel quite strongly
> (knowing the sci
1999 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: removing f2c from base distribution
>> "David O'Brien" wrote:
>> > I've got a Bmaked contribified version of EGCS, but didn't do g77. So
>> > maybe a consensus should be made what to do about FORTRAN in the base
>>
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:06:44PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > The question is whether Peter wants to include g77, and whether
> > people would see this as bloat. I know g77 outperforms f2c+gcc
> > on my real-world benchmarks by a significant margin.
>
> A good question, is how easy it is to
Mike Smith wrote:
> > "David O'Brien" wrote:
> > > I've got a Bmaked contribified version of EGCS, but didn't do g77. So
> > > maybe a consensus should be made what to do about FORTRAN in the base
> > > system.
> >
> > If you are collecting votes, please add mine; I feel quite strongly
> > (knowi
> "David O'Brien" wrote:
> > I've got a Bmaked contribified version of EGCS, but didn't do g77. So
> > maybe a consensus should be made what to do about FORTRAN in the base
> > system.
>
> If you are collecting votes, please add mine; I feel quite strongly
> (knowing the scientists that I do that
"David O'Brien" wrote:
> I've got a Bmaked contribified version of EGCS, but didn't do g77. So
> maybe a consensus should be made what to do about FORTRAN in the base
> system.
If you are collecting votes, please add mine; I feel quite strongly
(knowing the scientists that I do that use Fortran)
David O'Brien wrote:
> > The question is whether Peter wants to include g77, and whether
> > people would see this as bloat. I know g77 outperforms f2c+gcc
> > on my real-world benchmarks by a significant margin.
>
> A good question, is how easy it is to download egcs-g77-1.1.1.tar.gz and
> build
David O'Brien wrote:
> > Um, I'm still alive but can someone explain me why this can't be a
> > "regular" port? Being useful to some but not the majority, no other
> > parts of the system depending on it, this looks like a model citizen
> > in the ideal ports world. :)
>
> Because we loose contro
> The question is whether Peter wants to include g77, and whether
> people would see this as bloat. I know g77 outperforms f2c+gcc
> on my real-world benchmarks by a significant margin.
A good question, is how easy it is to download egcs-g77-1.1.1.tar.gz and
build it into something workable assum
Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * Well, actually I did f2c as a port, and it does indeed fit
> * inside the ports paradigm. Please, see my original email in
> * the thread.
>
> Yes, I know that. I was just wondering why people would want it
> otherwise.
>
My original email provided an opportunity t
> Um, I'm still alive but can someone explain me why this can't be a
> "regular" port? Being useful to some but not the majority, no other
> parts of the system depending on it, this looks like a model citizen
> in the ideal ports world. :)
Because we loose control over it. There is a move to pu
Nate Williams wrote:
>
> > Just also remember that Peter will at some point be doing an egcs
> > upgrade, so if that has issues for fortran they should be worked
> > out at this time.
>
> Steven?
>
egcs contains g77 and egcs can be configured to be built with or
without g77. My port of f2c, li
> I'm not currently balking at the idea of you picking it up - by all
> means, feel free! :)
Roger Wilco, Ok-dokey, good deal. :)
> Just also remember that Peter will at some point be doing an egcs
> upgrade, so if that has issues for fortran they should be worked
> out at this time.
Steven?
N
* Well, actually I did f2c as a port, and it does indeed fit
* inside the ports paradigm. Please, see my original email in
* the thread.
Yes, I know that. I was just wondering why people would want it
otherwise.
Satoshi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe f
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> Just also remember that Peter will at some point be doing an egcs
> upgrade, so if that has issues for fortran they should be worked
> out at this time.
On this matter, I found out the other day that eg++-compiled binaries are not
binary-compatible
I'm not currently balking at the idea of you picking it up - by all
means, feel free! :)
Just also remember that Peter will at some point be doing an egcs
upgrade, so if that has issues for fortran they should be worked
out at this time.
- Jordan
> > Ladies and Gents,
> >
> > I have completed t
Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * From: Steve Kargl
>
> * Yes, I recognize that this is problem. A partial solution might
> * be anoncvs to a shadow tree of the master ports repository. Only
> * those ports in the shadow tree which satisfy portlint and "make;
> * make install; make package" would g
* From: Steve Kargl
* Yes, I recognize that this is problem. A partial solution might
* be anoncvs to a shadow tree of the master ports repository. Only
* those ports in the shadow tree which satisfy portlint and "make;
* make install; make package" would get committed to the master
* rep
* From: "David O'Brien"
* Alternately, I guess we could just have the code live in
* /usr/ports/lang/f2c/src/, but I don't know if Satoshi wants /usr/ports
* to expand like that.
Eek. I don't think people will appreciate the ports collection
suddenly exploding in size with things like that.
David O'Brien wrote:
> > Each Makefile under the ports systems contains a maintainer line. I
> > do not think it unreasonable for someone to send patchs directly to the
> > maintainer.
>
> Except that some maintainers dissapear, and maintainers w/o commit
> abilities still have to get someone to
> Each Makefile under the ports systems contains a maintainer line. I
> do not think it unreasonable for someone to send patchs directly to the
> maintainer.
Except that some maintainers dissapear, and maintainers w/o commit
abilities still have to get someone to update the port for them.
--
David O'Brien wrote:
> > I was among the people that asked Steve to do the work; I'd have no
> > trouble with you doing the integration/extraction. You might just
> > want to check that the recent alpha-related changes that were submitted
> > for f2c are covered in the portified version.
>
> T
> I was among the people that asked Steve to do the work; I'd have no
> trouble with you doing the integration/extraction. You might just
> want to check that the recent alpha-related changes that were submitted
> for f2c are covered in the portified version.
This might be a good time to bring
> > > Ladies and Gents,
> > >
> > > I have completed the portification of f2c and its support library.
> >
> > Who is going to pick this up? Last time I volunteered, Jordan balked at
> > the idea.
>
> I was among the people that asked Steve to do the work; I'd have no
> trouble with you doing
Mike Smith wrote:
> > > Ladies and Gents,
> > >
> > > I have completed the portification of f2c and its support library.
> >
> > Who is going to pick this up? Last time I volunteered, Jordan balked at
> > the idea.
>
> I was among the people that asked Steve to do the work; I'd have no
> troub
> > Ladies and Gents,
> >
> > I have completed the portification of f2c and its support library.
>
> Who is going to pick this up? Last time I volunteered, Jordan balked at
> the idea.
I was among the people that asked Steve to do the work; I'd have no
trouble with you doing the integration/ex
> Ladies and Gents,
>
> I have completed the portification of f2c and its support library.
Who is going to pick this up? Last time I volunteered, Jordan balked at
the idea.
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
55 matches
Mail list logo
