JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for STARDEV Archives


STARDEV Archives

STARDEV Archives


STARDEV@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

STARDEV Home

STARDEV Home

STARDEV  August 2005

STARDEV August 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: autoconf tests with g95

From:

Norman Gray <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Starlink development <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:19:27 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (140 lines)

Tim,

On 2005 Aug 9 , at 14.04, Tim Jenness wrote:

>   I'll address this to you as the maintainer of the fortran  
> autoconf system rather than a Starlink person.... Feel free to  
> ignore me.

I could never do that....

>   1. Did the patches ever get off? (sorry)

Not yet.  I'd hoped to send them off in a blaze of glory on 31 July,  
and very nearly got there (I thought), but ran out of time.  I didn't  
have a chance to look at them at all last week, for rather pressing  
non-work reasons.  This week, I got them all packaged up neatly,  
ready to go, then test-applied the patch to the autoconf CVS HEAD  
(lovely), built the result (lovely), ran the regression tests (oh  
dear...).

I know that Toby has some quite substantial working-but-uncommitted  
changes (slightly worrying, but not a problem in itself).  However it  
looks as if some draft of his changes may have made its way onto the  
branch, which changes the autoconf FC interface just enough to break  
a test.  We've never noticed, because it's in macro AC_FC_FREEFORM,  
which we never use.  I've mailed him to see if he can clarify.  I  
imagine that very few folk in fact use that macro, so breaking it  
would probably be defensible; in fact, I think very few folk can use  
the FC interface at all, as it's so limited, in the 2.59 release, as  
to be practically useless.


>   2. I'm playing with a g95 and I'm getting trouble with the  
> autoconf tests. Specifically:
>
> eg in astrom:
>
>   configure:4187: WARNING: Use AC_PROG_FC with AC_PROG_FPP, instead  
> of AC_PROG_F77

This is the result of a `if test "X$F77" != X; then' test, and so  
would be triggered if there is a $F77 defined in the environment.   
No, it's not a very sensible test....

If you want to override a non-f77 compiler, you should define FC=xxx  
in a ./configure argument.

> configure:4541: checking for fixed form Fortran preprocessor features
> configure:4555: g95-64 -o conftest     conftest.F  >&5
> ld: /usr/local/g95-20050808src-64/bin/../lib/gcc-lib/powerpc-apple- 
> darwin8.2.0/4.0.1//libf95.dylib bad magic number (not a Mach-O file)
> configure:4561: $? = 1
> configure: failed program was:
> | #define OK
> |       program main
> | #ifndef OK
> |       syntax error
> | #endif
> |
>
> This fails and everything dies because I have a case insenitive  
> file system. The problem is that the fortran runtime library is  
> 64bit and so I really really need $(FLAGS) to be included for the  
> compiler tests to actually work. You will note that the first test  
> did include $(FFLAGS) (and passed) but the second test failed. I'm  
> hoping this is an easy fix...

This might be harder.  I have a note from Toby which suggests that  
there's a larger mess here:

> The question then arises how one compiles in free form, and how one
> compiles using different source extensions. Starlink's current  
> version (and
> indeed the version in currently-released autoconf) treat these as
> separate questions, when in fact they are not. The compiler flags
> necessary to compile free-form source depend on the extension of the
> file; and the compiler flags for a particular source extension depend
> on the format of the source.
>
> So - I've deprecated AC_FC_SRCEXT and AC_FPP_SRCEXT (the second of  
> which
> I introduced myself, so is safe enough to lose - the first of which
> needs to be kept around for backwards compatibility, however broken)
> And then I've extended AC_FC_FREEFORM and AC_FC_FIXEDFORM to accept a
> first argument of a suffix; they then create all the appropriate
> variables tagged with FIXED_<SRCEXT> etc.
> I've then also added an analogous AC_FPP_FREEFORM and  
> AC_FPP_FIXEDFORM.
> (which are no-ops for indirect compilation)

So that the resolution to this appears to have an unholy link with  
the regression failures mentioned at the top of this message.

What this means is that (a) I'll have to mail Toby to try to get him  
to commit his recent changes onto the dev-nxg-20040116-add-fpp- 
support branch, and to brace himself for some arguments when we do  
put the patches in (he's already anticipated that this will have to  
be a two-man job on the list), and (b) you/we might as well hack away  
at the fortran.m4 that's on the HEAD, because it's probably doomed.

I think I've spotted a potential fix, though, or at least an error in  
a plausibly important place.  In macro AC_LANG(Fortran), the variable  
$FCFLAGS is used (variable $FFLAGS is for the F77 interface only,  
$FCFLAGS is for the FC interface which is the one the Preprocessable  
Fortran `language' is based on).  In the macro AC_LANG(Preprocessed  
Fortran), ac_compile and ac_link are set to $ac_fpp_compile and  
$ac_fpp_link respectively, and these are in turn set at various  
points in the rest of the file, inside macros rich with FIXMEs, which  
are the ones whose logic Toby seems to think is largely broken.   
However, each time ac_fpp_{compile,link} are set, they use $FFLAGS  
rather than $FCFLAGS, and there's a lot of switching back and forth  
between languages at crucial points, and indeed there's a PWD note  
which fixes a problem by popping then pushing the `Preprocessed  
Fortran' language, purely so that the newly defined $ac_fpp_ 
{link,compile} are respected.

So, without having a completely convincing story of what's going on,  
I suspect that the problem you describe is falling foul of this  
somewhere.  At least, it might be worth replacing $FFLAGS with  
$FCFLAGS each time ac_fpp_{compile,link} is set, making sure that  
FCFLAGS is set to the 64-bit options you need, and seeing what  
happens.  If that works on the HEAD, then you or I could make the  
same fix on the dev branch, albeit with the expectation that it'll be  
stomped on by a more substantial/robust rewrite at some point in the  
near future.

Migrating the dev branch to the HEAD isn't a major task.

How does that sound?

...apart from `two steps forward two steps back'.

Norman


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Gray  /  http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/
Physics & Astronomy, Glasgow University, UK

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2023
January 2023
December 2022
July 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
December 2021
October 2021
July 2021
April 2021
January 2021
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
May 2020
November 2019
October 2019
July 2019
June 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
August 2018
July 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
December 2017
October 2017
August 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
2004
April 2003
2003


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager