Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

updates to gfortran again? #961

Closed
beckermr opened this issue Jan 27, 2020 · 15 comments
Closed

updates to gfortran again? #961

beckermr opened this issue Jan 27, 2020 · 15 comments

Comments

@beckermr
Copy link
Member

beckermr commented Jan 27, 2020

It appears the scipy folks are discussing Fortran2003. I think we would have to migrate our fortran compilers to support this.

xref: scipy/scipy#11421

@isuruf
Copy link
Member

isuruf commented Jan 27, 2020

You mean gfortran 8 or above? We use gfortran 7.3.0 on linux and mac.

@beckermr
Copy link
Member Author

Right. Fortran2003 is the language def and we would need at least 4.8. Some features are 4.9

@isuruf
Copy link
Member

isuruf commented Jan 27, 2020

? 7.3 > 4.9

@beckermr
Copy link
Member Author

Ach sorry yes. 🤦‍♂ 8 or above, maybe 9 on both linux and osx

@beckermr
Copy link
Member Author

Here is the page. Looks like 8 would do the trick modulo bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Fortran2003Status

@beckermr
Copy link
Member Author

scipy issue was closed. closing

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Member

Actually, for full support of Fortran2003 (which will surely be necessary eventually), it seems that gcc >= 9.0 is required, see "Asynchronous input/output" in the status page.

Although, one can hope that with LLVM 11 later this year, we might have a x-platform fortran-compiler, depending how things develop with flang-compiler/f18#876 (they were reasonably close to inclusion for LLVM 10 already; let's hope 11's the charm)

@beckermr
Copy link
Member Author

I’d be nervous about moving conda-forge to flang. Gfortran seems like a decent standard for now.

@scopatz
Copy link
Member

scopatz commented Mar 10, 2020

flang on windows seems like a reasonable thing to do, though

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Member

Sure, start with windows (finally scipy on CF!), and if the standards question comes up again, it can then still be weighed what's the better course of action.

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

FWIW people have tried this before ( conda-forge/scipy-feedstock#78 ), but maybe the tooling has improved in the intervening time?

Thoughts @isuruf? 🙂

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Member

@jakirkham, @isuruf is more than just a little involved already. 😉
Conda-forge's flang is tracking his personal flang-compiler/flang fork (predecessor to flang-compiler/f18), and he's not just actively involved, but actually going to lead the windows support effort for f18 in the context of them merging into LLVM.

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

I'm very aware of all of this @h-vetinari 😄

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Member

h-vetinari commented Mar 10, 2020

Pardon me if that was all very obvious ('m sure the following will be too 😅).

I just misunderstood the question about the scipy-status, as it seems to me from his comments that scipy is clearly a target once that capability lands (originally it was hoped to be windows support in flang itself), but now everyone is putting their efforts into f18, and I would guess that not much will happen before that sees a release in LLVM. Although, to be fair, @mariusvniekerk did prepare a conda-forge scipy build with VS2017 + 2019 and Intel IFort.

PS. Maybe I should just let the man answer for himself... I'll stop now, sorry 🙈

@isuruf
Copy link
Member

isuruf commented Mar 16, 2020

flang development has stopped now and everyone is putting their efforts on f18.
code generation in f18 landed 4 days ago and it still experimental and the runtime libraries are being written. It's a long way from being usable, but it'll get there. f18 is more receptive in getting windows patches merged, so when f18 is ready for other platforms, it'll probably be for windows too.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants