X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=
	vLzHxn1Hm6qVsEngfImeu9NfMiw+EJWPAN3D6OXishpkeXOHG3b/B9rRmNCcJA3W
	bNo/jaXzcUutap8MBkRBj/WGJ+GUd3uxI5uW0LKrGsq/rymzmnlIOGzLk31VKO7Z
	a6MGDoerbvjnJ56VhzDtgrTiHiTLNyXF9pFv94/K+JQ=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; s=default; bh=Q60sZ
	8uwM4+0nK2WC9N+QVBLvTc=; b=EEZJ4Q+3e1sfPlcx50H1ugkiHfmQHwKurMYD8
	QYSp9Snq4XWNsxeaiaiJTh6x3UlehADvBGSi3PURXNAC6/52PY2vSokGxAfc8CK2
	A2Mrkk93siM0O+BtUxy0Fa0PRQeHmWhV5940xJsMUF8BOSgRIout4y1GIc6KMtsw
	VB528E=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.14.88.65 with SMTP id z41mr26907843eee.38.1376964165132; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<52126E74.5040708@molconn.com>
References:	<5212558F DOT 7030206 AT molconn DOT com> <52126888 DOT 6050608 AT cygwin DOT com> <52126E74 DOT 5040708 AT molconn DOT com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:02:44 +0800
Message-ID:	<CAAWYfq3hc-dn4-2ATGjXuFf-phvEPfK6cdhTScuqhTnxCmUhKA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe
From:	Dima Pasechnik <dimpase AT gmail DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Cc:	lmh_users-groups AT molconn DOT com

On 20 August 2013 03:13, LMH <lmh_users-groups AT molconn DOT com> wrote:
> I would be happy to build gcc-3 myself, I'm just looking for some
> documentation to get that done.
>
> The fact the gcc-3/g77 are old means nothing to me. There are still millions
> of lines of fortran77 code out there that are being used. There is just no
> reason to spend years of man hours to update the code and result in new code
> that gives the exact numerical answers as the old code. I already work 80,
> and sometimes even 100 hours in a week developing new material. The less
> time I have to spend on projects that already work as is, the better. The
> last time I checked, important linux distros used in industry (Cent, Suse,
> etc) all still included legacy gcc3 development support. If you think about
> the investment in gcc3 based code that is out there, and the time that could
> be required to port that to gcc4, keeping the legacy support makes allot of
> sense.
>
> When gcc4 first came out, I tried moving. I was able to get my code to
> compile and link after making allot of changes to the header files, but I
> got different numerical answers on my data for some cases. This is the real
> bugbear.

gfortran is not considered a bugbear since about gcc 4.1. Its
developers are committed to considering
any standard Fortran 77 code that does not compile or
gives wrong results on gfortran a bug.


> When you change compilers, everything has to be QC'd again. I tried
> again with gcc4.3, and found again that many header files had changed and it
> took quite a bit of work to get it to compile. When I did get it to work, I
> now got the same numerical answers as with gcc3. This underscores some of
> the issues that can happen when you change compilers, especially if the
> compiler is a relatively new version. Imagine some of the disasters that
> could have happened if I based research on the incorrect values from
> software compiled under the early versions of gcc4!!! There have also been
> allot of issues with folks trying to compile f77 code under gfortran.
>
> In many cases, there is just no good reason to move compilers when you have
> mature src code that has been optimized and QC'd for 30+ years. Why would
> you want to put ANY time into maintaining such code?

I used to write a lot of Fortran 4 code back in 198*ies...
Should I demand an IBM-360 Fortran 4 compiler being
distributed? :-)

> That is not a
> rhetorical question, so if there are some good reasons to move to newer
> versions of gcc, I would be interested in hearing the arguments. Putting in
> time to revise code and end up with the identical assembler is not something
> I am all that interested in.
>
Identical assembler? Come on, do you want your executables optimized for i486 ?
Then yes, you might want to us gcc3. :-)
Also it's obvious that most of Fortran 77 code had been developed not
on g77, but
using other compilers, mostly dead by now. After all, being a cross-compiler,
g77 is mostly a quick hack.

Dmitrii

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -