[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Future plans for Autotools
From: |
NightStrike |
Subject: |
Re: Future plans for Autotools |
Date: |
Wed, 5 May 2021 20:31:20 -0400 |
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 5:34 AM Thomas Jahns <jahns@dkrz.de> wrote:
> > - Our code is a mix of Fortran and C, with a bit of C++. Automake still
> > deos not support Fortran 90-type module dependencies, so we have to manage
> > manual dependencies in one of our Makefile.am's. More modern systems handle
> > Fortran (not quite the latest fad) much better.
>
> At our site, there are a number of scripts in use that generate the Fortran
> module/file dependencies on demand. For those not knowing Fortran: source
> files
> are compiled to both, .mod files for use in runs of the compiler and .o files
> for the later link step. The .mod files can follow a number of conventions in
> respect to suffix and upper/lower case basename and suffix.
This is going to become very important to keep automake relevant, as
c++ is adopting modules using the same two-file-output mechanism as
Fortran. GNU Make supports having a rule generate multiple files and
tracking them accordingly. I think automake really needs to support
this soon.
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, FOURNIER Yvan, 2021/05/02
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, Thomas Jahns, 2021/05/03
- Re: Future plans for Autotools,
NightStrike <=
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, Karl Berry, 2021/05/06
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, Bob Friesenhahn, 2021/05/06
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, NightStrike, 2021/05/06
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, Andy Tai, 2021/05/06
- Re: Future plans for Autotools, Bob Friesenhahn, 2021/05/06
Re: Future plans for Autotools, Kip Warner, 2021/05/03
Re: Future plans for Autotools, Karl Berry, 2021/05/12