Subject: Re: [Boost-build] pathscale pathf77?
From: K. Noel Belcourt (kbelco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-05 13:32:04
On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Spencer E. Olson wrote:
> On Friday 05 February 2010 04:53:01 Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> I wonder if separate compile.fortran and compile.fortran90 are now
>> necessary. I see that fortran90 has some extra goodies, like
>> compilation, or passing the -module option, but maybe this can be
> Not really sure. I thought the same thing when I was submitting
> that patch.
> I just don't know the consequences of using the fortran90 compile
> line. I
> don't have too much Fortran code, and even less Fortran90 as of
> yet, but I do
> need it supported similarly between several compilers. Perhaps
> Noel can
I'm not sure I know the answer either. I've attached our admittedly
old (circa version 1.38) pathscale.jam that we've hacked for our
needs. Perhaps it's time for us to upgrade to 1.42 and see if we can
eliminate some of these rules.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk