darwin may lose primary target status on FSF gcc

[Toby Peterson]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:44, Brian Barnes <bcbarnes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Toby Peterson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:08, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 03:02:00PM -0700, Toby Peterson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 14:43, Brian Barnes <bcbarnes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The llvm/clang community appears to have nobody / very few people
>>>>> interested
>>>>> in implementing a Fortran front-end
>>>>
>>>> Only one way to change that...
>>>
>>>  I suspect a careful review of the gfortran progress will show
>>> that it only gained traction when programmers contracted to improve
>>> it came on board. Expecting a 'grass-roots' fortran project to
>>> viable is a bit unrealistic. Only if FSF gcc became unbuildable
>>> on darwin might a company feel the need to expend funds on such
>>> a project.
>>
>> In that case let's hope it becomes unbuildable sooner rather than later.
>
> Or, perhaps let's hope that people exist with motive, means and opportunity
> to contribute to gcc and keep it working on OS X, and are able to do so.  I
> would rather not lose future updates to the only fast, free Fortran compiler
> on OS X.  I cannot comprehend why you wish for some of us to lose our tools
> with no fast, free replacement even vaguely in sight.

gcc 4.4 will continue to work, and in the meantime development on a
viable llvm-based replacement can proceed. Seems quite straightforward
to me.

- Toby