On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Tim Jenness wrote:
> I'm trying to get starlink built on my Mac with g95. It's going okay (the
> libtool breakage is annoying but still...) but I see that GENERIC doesn't
> do the test fo hex notation and so fails because g95 prefers X'' to ''X
> and also doesn't have IZEXT. Before I add the tests to generic...
>
> Looking into this I noted a number of oddities:
>
> 1. I think Peter's hex test should go into the standard Fortran autoconf
> macros. It does seem to be useful. Peter: Can you add it to
> fortran.m4? You may want to add it to Norman's dev branch as well if
> Norman agrees.
Tim,
OK, I've implemented three new macros:
AC_FC_HAVE_BOZ, to check if standard f95 integer BOZ constants are
supported
AC_FC_HAVE_TYPELESS_BOZ, to check if these are extended to allow for
typeless assignments
AC_FC_HAVE_OLD_TYPELESS_BOZ, to check if the current usage is
supported (that's typeless 'xxxx'X style)
and a
AC_FC_HAVE_PERCENTLOC, to check if %LOC is supported (the fallback
being to use plain LOC)
I'll commit these to the HEAD branch if no one objects.
Norman, I've not documented these as I cannot work what's going on with
the autoconf.texi file. The log suggests that things like
AC_FC_HAVE_PERCENTVAL should be documented on HEAD (merged from your
branch?), but they do not seem to be present... Any ideas what's up?
> 2. Why does DCV exist at all? Can't I simply recast these in terms of
> the PRM functions? A quick search with spotlight demonstrates that
> nothing seems to use them.
Don't know the real answer to this one (goes back too far, Malcolm may
remember), but I've always assumed DCV predates PRM (note that it only
does the difficult unsigned conversions), so we've been moving from DCV to
PRM for a couple of decades now (bit like the non-NDF KAPPA tasks saga)...
As for replacing it directly with PRM calls, I've just looked at the code,
it uses a brutal STOP when there's an overflow (so doesn't belong in an
ADAM task, period). Maybe time for this lot to just die, unless anyone
knows of a legitimate use for that nastiness (realtime?).
Peter.
|