This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
>>> For your fortran issue, the Fortran 90 interface needs the Fortran 77
>>> interface. So you need to supply an F77 as well (the output from
>>> should indicate that the F90 interface was disabled because the F77
>>> interface was disabled).
>> Is that what you mean (see below)?
> Ah yes -- that's another reason the f90 interface could be disabled:
> if configure detects that the f77 and f90 compilers are not link-
>> I thought the g95 compiler could
>> deal with F77 as well as F95... If so, could I just pass F77='g95'?
> That would probably work (F77=g95). I don't know the g95 compiler at
> all, so I don't know if it also accepts Fortran-77-style codes. But
> if it does, then you're set. Otherwise, specify a different F77
> compiler that is link compatible with g95 and you should be good.
Fortran 90 is a superset of the archaic, hamstrung, "I'm too old to learn
how to program in a useful manner and I still use punched cards" Fortran
77. All Fortran 90 compilers are Fortran 77 compilers, by definition.
Fortran 95 has a few (~5) deleted features and a few minor added features.
I've never heard of a Fortran 95 compiler that wasn't a Fortran 90
compiler, and thus a Fortran 77 compiler.
Take g77 and throw it away. While it's not particularly buggy, it hasn't
been maintained for years and should be out-performed by a more modern
compiler such as g95 or gfortran.