[66590] trunk/dports/devel

[Rainer Müller]

On 2010-04-19 11:01 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Sounds interesting, but something to pay attention to with such an
> effort is the other effort that was going on with the science ports,
> to make all of them use a common compiler (they chose gcc43) because
> you don't want programs linking with each other if they were compiled
> for different versions of the gcc libraries. Apparently this is known
> to cause the universe, or at least those trying to use the software,
> to explode. I'm concerned that, using this proposed new fortran
> compiler portgroup, you might at one point in time be building things
> with one compiler, because that one happens to be installed, and then
> at some later time you might install a newer compiler (e.g. gcc45)
> and from then on ports would start compiling with that, leading to
> gcc library mismatches. Maybe that's not an issue for Fortran like it
> is for C, but perhaps we consider a similar mechanism for the C
> compiler, or perhaps the mechanism you develop is not specific to
> Fortran.

I am aware that there are different name mangling options for Fortran,
which make libraries incompatible between g95 and gfortran. But if there
are further issues then I agree that it is a bad idea.

Probably a port group for these science related ports wouldn't be a bad
idea as that would make it easier to switch the compiler at one place
(still requires revision bumps of course).

Rainer