[Fwd: Re: fortran FC patch]

[Michael R Nolta]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: fortran FC patch
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:29:56 -0500
From: Michael R Nolta <address@hidden>
Organization: Princeton University
To: Alexandre Duret-Lutz <address@hidden>
References: <address@hidden> 
<address@hidden>

Hi Alexandre,

Here's the stuff you requested:

* original patch
* doc updates
* new tests
* ChangeLog entry
* updated NEWS, THANKS

-Mike

Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>>>>"Michael" == Michael R Nolta <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>
>  Michael> Hi,
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Happy new year, and sorry for the delay.
>
>  Michael> Here's a small patch to automake-1.8 to support the new 
"FC" fortran
>  Michael> interface in autoconf (AC_PROG_FC,FC,FCFLAGS). Essentially 
I just
>  Michael> copied the F77 parts and replaced F77->FC, adding a new 
language with
>  Michael> name "fc".
>
>  Michael> The patch is simple enough that it's probably ok, and
>  Michael> it seems to work.
>
> This looks correct to me, but the only way to ensure it will
> remain so is to add a test case.  Could you write one?  See
> tests/README for guidance.
>
> Also we can't install such a new feature without a proper update
> of the manual.  Finally, you should also submit a ChangeLog entry
> along with your patch.  I think that's all :)
> (All this is summarized on 
http://sources.redhat.com/automake/contribute.html)
>
>  Michael> The one bit which I'm not sure about regards file
>  Michael> extensions. I split them between "f77" and "fc",
>  Michael> allocating ".f" and ".for" to the former, ".f90" and
>  Michael> ".f95" to the latter. This probably breaks stuff which
>  Michael> assumed ".f90" was handled by f77.
>
> I'm not a fortran user, but I've always wondered why .f90 was
> listed as an extension for F77.  Moving it away sounds sensible
> to me.

automake-fc-patch.tgz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data