David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 12:10:26PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > It should be noted that both fsplit and fpr apply to legacy
> > Fortran 77 code (and older). Neither utility can deal with
> > Fortran 90 or Fortran 95.
>
> But that [Fortran 77] is all our fortran compiler s
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 12:10:26PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> It should be noted that both fsplit and fpr apply to legacy
> Fortran 77 code (and older). Neither utility can deal with
> Fortran 90 or Fortran 95.
But that [Fortran 77] is all our fortran compiler supports. :)
--
-- David([E
Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> I'd also like to rip out fsplit into ports (the code is disgusting and
> was probably written by a FORTRAN programmer and/or using f2c :) but then
> I'd draw fire from the "people who know someone who uses FORTRAN" crowd.
>
I was going to fix fsplit. Yes, I program in
Kris Kennaway writes:
[error(1) stuff elided]
> Is there any productive reason to keep it in our tree? If you have to look
> up what it does, then I dare say you don't need it :-)
>
> I'd also like to rip out fsplit into ports (the code is disgusting and
> was probably written by a FORTRAN p
Is error(1) actually useful thesedays? From a look at the source and the
docs, it seems like it was only ever relevant to whatever toolchain
4.xBSD used and has never been updated for the GNU toolchain:
Error knows about the error messages produced by: make(1), cc(1),
cpp(1), ccom(1), as(1)
