Re: Patch for Portland compiler support

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Jeff,

* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 03:00:22PM CET:
> 
> Some of the consumers of our software use the Portland Group compilers 
> (http://www.pgroup.com/).  Libtool 1.5.x doesn't seem to recognize 
> these compilers, and therefore doesn't always do the Right Things.

Libtool doesn't know about Portland's compilers at all (so far).

> I have *barely* dived into the libtool source, but I have come up with 
> a patch for the current CVS branch-1-5 that seems to make libtool do 
> the Right Things for pgcc on Linux (I didn't try for an analogue on the 
> CVS trunk for the 2.x series).  Could this patch be considered for 
> future releases of Libtool?

Actually, I'm wondering about the name.  There has once been a pentium
gcc, abbreviated pgcc as well.  How unfortunate :(
I don't know how much the pentium gcc is still in use, but the fact that
this one is not meant deserves at least a comment within the m4 snippet.
Looking at its webpage, it looks pretty dead, though.

(Fortunately, gcc on linux understands all the variable values you've
submitted so far.  We might just get away with it anyway.)

But certainly there will be more problems with pgcc?  What about pgf77
and pgCC?  Could you or one of your consumers be bothered to try
branch-2-0 of libtool (1.9f will do fine as well) and report us more
possible problems its testsuite reports (VERBOSE=x output for failed
tests is good), so that we can support it right, not only halfway?
(This is the more interesting for you since we won't bother much with
libtool-1.5 any more as soon as 2.0 is out).

Do you/your consumers use pgcc on Windows?  That's probably going to be
a whole different (and scarier) story.

Other than that, we love ChangeLog entries. :)

> --- libtool.m4  19 Sep 2004 12:13:50 -0000      1.314.2.50
> +++ libtool.m4  17 Nov 2004 13:54:58 -0000
> @@ -4952,6 +4952,11 @@
>         _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)='-KPIC'
>         _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_static, $1)='-static'
>          ;;
> +      pgcc*)
> +       _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_wl, $1)='-Wl,'
> +       _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)='-fpic'
> +       _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_static, $1)='-Bstatic'
> +        ;;
>        ccc*)
>          _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_wl, $1)='-Wl,'
>          # All Alpha code is PIC.
> 
> Please forgive me if this patch is egregiously wrong -- if it is, any 
> advice on making it Right would be tremendously appreciated!

Looks good.  The branch-2-0 equivalent would be similar -- just grep for
ccc in libtool/m4/libtool.m4.

Regards,
Ralf