On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 11:37:14PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>Even if there were complete g77 compatibility in g95, folks may want
> to stick with the g77 version from gcc 3.4 for awhile purely for
> performance reasons. In doing some test runs of the APBS
> Adaptive Poisson-Boltzmann Solver
On 4/17/05, Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even if there were complete g77 compatibility in g95, folks may want
> to stick with the g77 version from gcc 3.4 for awhile purely for
> performance reasons. In doing some test runs of the APBS
> Adaptive Poisson-Boltzmann Solver program, I d
Jack Howarth wrote:
>Even if there were complete g77 compatibility in g95, folks may want
> to stick with the g77 version from gcc 3.4 for awhile purely for
> performance reasons. In doing some test runs of the APBS
> Adaptive Poisson-Boltzmann Solver program, I discovered that the g95
> built
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Howarth) writes:
>Even if there were complete g77 compatibility in g95, folks may want
> to stick with the g77 version from gcc 3.4 for awhile purely for
> performance reasons. In doing some test runs of the APBS
> Adaptive Poisson-Boltzmann Solver program, I discover
Even if there were complete g77 compatibility in g95, folks may want
to stick with the g77 version from gcc 3.4 for awhile purely for
performance reasons. In doing some test runs of the APBS
Adaptive Poisson-Boltzmann Solver program, I discovered that the g95
built binary runs 60% slower than t
Zack Weinberg wrote:
Branko Äibej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Zack Weinberg wrote:
"This compiler does not support all of Fortran 77 yet. We recommend
distributors continue to provide packages of g77 from GCC 3.4 for
the time being. When gfortran is considered a complete replacement
for g
Branko Äibej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> "This compiler does not support all of Fortran 77 yet. We recommend
>> distributors continue to provide packages of g77 from GCC 3.4 for
>> the time being. When gfortran is considered a complete replacement
>> for g77 we wi
Zack Weinberg wrote:
"This compiler does not support all of Fortran 77 yet. We recommend
distributors continue to provide packages of g77 from GCC 3.4 for
the time being. When gfortran is considered a complete replacement
for g77 we will announce it."
"We recommend distributors continue...
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 12:23 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> "This compiler at present doesn't cover all of Fortran 77. We assume
> >> distributors to provide access to g77 as long as that's useful."
> >
> > Slightly corrected for grammar:
> >
> >
Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "This compiler at present doesn't cover all of Fortran 77. We assume
>> distributors to provide access to g77 as long as that's useful."
>
> Slightly corrected for grammar:
>
> "We assume that distributors will provide access to g77 as long until
>
Eric Christopher wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 21:13 +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Toon Moene wrote:
I'm still thinking about the text to warn gfortran users for the fact
that this compiler at present doesn't cover all of Fortran 77 - and that
we assume distributors to provide access to g77 as long
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 21:13 +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Toon Moene wrote:
>
> > I'm still thinking about the text to warn gfortran users for the fact
> > that this compiler at present doesn't cover all of Fortran 77 - and that
> > we assume distributors to provide access to g77 as long as that
Toon Moene wrote:
> I'm still thinking about the text to warn gfortran users for the fact
> that this compiler at present doesn't cover all of Fortran 77 - and that
> we assume distributors to provide access to g77 as long as that's useful.
What about
"This compiler at present doesn't cover al
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Please treat the GCC 4.0 branch as frozen as of this time. All
non-documentation changes now need my explicit approval.
I'll spin prerelease bits soon.
It's a pity a couple of important gfortran bug fixes "didn't make it",
but work is under way to get them applied to 4.0.1.
On Saturday 09 April 2005 4:42 pm, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:27:52PM +0200, Christian Parpart wrote:
> > I've reported a bug on gcc-help list, but nooone seem to be interested
> > in.
>
> Bugs ought to be reported at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla.
I was asking a bit shy on th
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:27:52PM +0200, Christian Parpart wrote:
> I've reported a bug on gcc-help list, but nooone seem to be interested in.
>
Bugs ought to be reported at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla.
Diego.
On Saturday 09 April 2005 9:02 am, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Please treat the GCC 4.0 branch as frozen as of this time. All
> non-documentation changes now need my explicit approval.
I've reported a bug on gcc-help list, but nooone seem to be interested in.
That's really sad, because I rely on this
17 matches
Mail list logo
