[SciPy-Dev] [fwrap-users] Work on fwrap and SciPy
Wed Nov 3 23:30:28 CDT 2010
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:10 PM, David Warde-Farley
> On 2010-11-03, at 11:31 PM, Kurt Smith wrote:
>> g77 support is certainly possible, given sufficient effort. I am in
>> favor of it, but someone else will have to do it (I'm happy to pitch
>> in, of course). It will require a good deal of work that I can't
>> justify given my requirements for the tool.
> There's also the issue (correct me if this has changed since we spoke in Austin, Kurt) that Fwrap isn't gfortran 4.2 compatible, yet on OS X the recommended binary distribution of gfortran for SciPy is a 4.2 build. I recall Robert saying at some point that building a 100% correctly working gfortran (on OS X, at least?) is a nightmare. So there's that hurdle to deal with somehow when Fwrap starts getting used for SciPy.
Yes. I agree. If you want a universal gfortran on OS X that isn't
the recommended binary version, you would have to reproduce what was
done here, under "Building a universal compiler":
I've tried it for gfortran 4.4.4 with no success (dependency hell, IIRC).
A suboptimal solution, suitable only for local use (non-universal
build, so no fat binaries) is to use the gfortran from fink or
macports. This introduces its own issues, none insurmountable.
Fwrap's new build system *greatly* improves things here.
Numpy and Scipy point people to R's OS X gfortran. One day I plan on
making a case to some benefactor to host a gfortran build suitable for
use with fwrap, but that's only when fwrap is an essential component.
If/when fwrap gets an 'f77-compat' mode, then it won't matter the
gfortran version, but it won't support all fortran 90/95 constructs.
To support those, fwrap requires gfortran >=4.4 (the 4.3 series is
Or one can simply use g95 >=0.92, and bypass all of the above.
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
More information about the SciPy-Dev