Re: [G95] planned obsolescence?

[Paul Brook]

On Monday 20 January 2003 2:29 am, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
> > Right now, Paul Brook has to maintain is own set of
> > patches to autoconf[1] and automake to allow us to build our runtime
> > library  (which is partially written in Fortran 90).
>
> Thanks, I took a look at the F95 patches for g95...it looks mainly like a
> copy of fortran.m4 to f95.m4 with s/f77/f95/.  Is that accurate, or could
> you point to any more substantive changes you needed to make?  My
> proposed autoconf patch should do what you want, while sharing the
> fortran backends between dialects.

I think that's pretty much it.
I made some more substantial changes to automake, to allow dependency 
tracking of f9x modules. This is overkill for libgfor, which doesn't use 
modules, but I use it for some of my own programs. This is also the cause 
of most of the problems as I haven't ironed out all the bugs yet (I think I 
may also have uncovered a couple of automake bugs).

> (I'm a bit surprised that you needed this at all, since I would have
> thought you could just use AC_PROG_F77(f90) and compile all Fortran xx
> files with $F77, especially since the backend is equivalent anyway in
> your implementation.  I've done this for existing projects of mine where
> I need to compile f90 files, with no major problems.  The current
> autoconf f77 stuff works for newer dialects for most purposes, except
> when one needs to mix f77 and f9x.  My patch does address one additional
> issue, the fact that IBM's xlf does not accept .f9* extensions without a
> special flag, grrr.)

I can't remember if I tried this or not. Maybe I'll give it annother try, 
it'd be nuce if we could do without my hacks.

Paul