Re: gfortran 8?
Just to be clear (sorry I didn't say so): I'm not advocating proceeding
with the gfortran-8 change for _all_ fortran codes, just the (part of)
the chains that ship / depend on .mod files.
regards
Alastair
On 09/05/2018 11:56, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> Testing, and fixing the FTBFS bugs. For most of gcc / g++ we can just
> fix the bugs "in-situ" in preparation for the changeover to default.
> For Fortran, the changes in the mod file format means that packages
> that need the new mod files wont build, and so can't be further tested.
>
> e.g. metview is a mix of Fortran and C++, and regularly breaks on g++
> changes (its got a bunch of old C++ code in it, not very standards
> compliant). But it FTBFS because it needs grib_api.mod from eccodes, so
> I need to force gfortran-8 for eccodes and metview to test.
>
> On 09/05/2018 11:33, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> is there a reason to go ahead with the gfortran-8 change, before we make GCC 8
>> the default?
>>
>> Thanks, Matthias
>>
--
Alastair McKinstry, <alastair@sceal.ie>, <mckinstry@debian.org>, https://diaspora.sceal.ie/u/amckinstry
Misentropy: doubting that the Universe is becoming more disordered.
Reply to: