Peter W. Draper wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, No Name wrote:
>
>>> knows how long that will take. In the meanwhile we've had very good
>>> success using the "g95" compiler (www.g95.org) and can now build the
>>> full CVS tree and some of us are using this regularly.
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much Peter for your very useful reply. My system managers
>> seem unwilling to install g95 (I will do it myself if need be),
>
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I had envisioned you doing all this yourself. Getting and using g95 is
> easy (just an untar and the creation of a softlink). Also the CVS code
> base is fairly fluid (you'd be surprised at how many changes are still
> being made) so isn't ready for replacing the current Starlink
> installation, if that's what you had in mind.
>
>> but they do support the commercial intel fortran compiler 'ifort'. Do
>> you or anyone else know whether STARLINK can be built with gcc and ifort?
>
>
> I've built it using ifort and gcc3. That works, but the resulting
> binaries are largely untested. In fact I've just updated my build and it
> seems quite basic programs that access HDS data files are not working.
> I'll try to find out why, but as you can see, this is a risky route!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter.
Just trying the build on 64bit GCC4.02 with both g95 and gfortran
installed. Setting F77=g95 sill makes configure select f95 (gfortran)
but setting FC=g95 makes configure get the correct g95 compiler. Is this
the expected behaviour?
Note, configure stalls with f95:
checking how to preprocess Fortran files...
Steve.
|