From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8186 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 20:27:05 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Aug 2004 20:27:05 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C04MK-0002mY-4w for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:27:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 6274 invoked by uid 89); 25 Aug 2004 20:27:03 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 25993 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2004 20:27:03 +0000 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <412CF14E.7040106@ifm.liu.se> References: <412CF14E.7040106@ifm.liu.se> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-bPMDkz49L6RNvhNky9aW" Message-Id: <1093465509.25119.4.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:25:10 -0500 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.43 X-Apparently-From: ERR_USER_NULL X-AOL-IP: 64.12.118.82 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ifc USE flag, fortran support and some general notes about multi-compiler support X-Archives-Salt: e67faf3a-6962-4381-b24f-bb470277187a X-Archives-Hash: f91b9c30f254906b017407f099a2ef8f --=-bPMDkz49L6RNvhNky9aW Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:06, Anton Starikov wrote: > So, has it sense to think about implementing some abstract=20 > multi-compiler support? at least for Fortran guys. > But generally, probably, it could be just let say "minor compiler=20 > support", which means, for C and F you still have gcc and g77 (gfortran=20 > in future) as a main compiler of the system, but you can also choose=20 > some kind of minor compiler. Now it almost work in such way with ICC. > ICC behaves just as some kind of minor compiler and some software that=20 > can be compiled with ICC will be compiled with icc. This should be added to gcc-config, so it can support independent language compilers. > So, there is coming in mind some idea of different approach. Transparent=20 > level of multicompiler support. OK, it is not granted.=20 > But...scientific guys use to live in not granted world :) > It probably looks like: > 1) You have two more flags: "altcc" and "altfc" > 2) somewhere (in make.conf for ex) you have specify : > ALTCC=3DC-compiler-which-I-really-like > ALTCXX=3DC++-compiler-which-I-really-like > ALTF77=3DF77-compiler-which-I-really-like > ALTF90=3DF90-compiler-which-I-really-like > ALTCFLAGS=3D"optimize-it-to-make-a-rocket" > ALTF77LAGS=3D"optimize-it-to-make-a-rocket" Yep. Some alternative compilers have their own configuration files for compiler-specific flags, however. They should still draw the generic flags from make.conf, such as CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS or FFLAGS (fortran). > Ebuild just check for "altcc" and "altfc" flags in USE, if they are, it=20 > force configure or whatever else to use it. Thats done. Of course you=20 > can't be sure that it will be compiled on all possible alternative=20 > compilers, but you can try :) Nah, USE isn't the right place for it. Ebuilds should respect the environment variables selecting compilers, such as CC, CXX, FC and so forth. The USE flags should be for other things, e.g. patches that are required for a specific compiler to work. --=20 Donnie Berkholz Gentoo Linux --=-bPMDkz49L6RNvhNky9aW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBLPWlXVaO67S1rtsRAmxdAKCQR5jCpKf6ZWWnEo+JLYCqSx+RVQCeKnu4 777LvQrEarBHvV9weDf24yU= =F0yX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-bPMDkz49L6RNvhNky9aW--