fopen always returns fid=-1 since revision 8380

[Thomas Treichl]

Jaroslav Hajek schrieb:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Thomas Treichl <Thomas.Treichl at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Jaroslav Hajek schrieb:
>>>> A self made f2c/fort77 combination together with gcc/g++ 4.0.1.
>>> Huh. Why aren't you using gfortran?
>> Oh yes - *uhhfff*, things would be much easier. It all started in the
>> beginning of 2007 when Paul Kienzle and me started to create Octave.app for
>> MacOSX... Ok, ok, I tell you the short story ;)
>>
>> Apple doesn't provide *all* of the GNU Compiler Collection, eg. gfortran,
>> gcj and others are missing but at least the C/C++ 4.0.1 compilers are there.
>> Creating a full compiler collection for myself would generally be possible,
>> creating a *working* cross compiler collection for me and others for a PPC
>> and i386 platform (like the one that already is installed on my Mac) is
>> incredibly incredibly incredibly hard (this is where the other story begins
>> about how to build universal binaries and a linker that combines all these
>> codes in one dynamic lib and ...). Apple uses f2c (at least on MacOSX 10.3.x
>> and 10.4.x machines - don't have any knowledge about 10.5.x) to build the
>> high performance '-framework vecLib' and other Fortran libs in the SDK (at
>> least that's what they say on their developer's website). The '-framework
>> vecLib' is used by Octave sources instead of a self made blas/lapack, so the
>> most compatible way to create binaries is that I use f2c, too.
> 
> OK, I understand, the reasoning is good. One thing that surprises me
> is that a company like Apple uses an unmaintained product like f2c
> instead of investing, e.g., into porting gfortran to their platform. I
> guess they only use f2c to build the Fortran interface, because any
> computational code compiled by f2c + whatever C compiler would be
> easily outperformed by using a fortran compiler directly.
> Huh. Apparently another company that considers Fortran dead. Sigh.
> Fortran is a zombie - a Terry Pratchett's zombie. It died, but it
> continues to unlive, within a small, active community, enjoying its
> afterlife. You may ignore it, but it's still around, while the
> mainstream languages are consistently failing to replace it.
> 
> Btw, the f2c compatibility is usually no problem - most compilers
> (gfortran included) provide a flag to ensure it. But of course I
> understand that you don't want to build gfortran yourself - I was
> always under the impression that the entire gcc is ported to Mac.
> 
> Btw2, for those still interested in Fortran, has anyone checked g95
> recently? Wow, eh?

Oh yes, I already did, I also had a look at this alternative. However, building 
g95 (that's what I understood from their documentation and their website) means 
downloading the sources of GCC and then putting the sources of g95 into the 
source tree of the GCC sources (something like patching GCC before). It would be 
great if it could be build from scratch without the need of the whole GCC source 
tree, otherwise I somehow have the same problems...

   Thomas