Re: PGI Compiler patch for cygwin

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Christopher Hulbert wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:53:31PM CET:
> On 2/21/06, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> > * Christopher Hulbert wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:15:42PM CET:
> > >
> > > I looked at the failure for fcdemo.  It
> > > looks like autoconf's AC_FC_LIBRARY_LDFLAGS is not picking up the PGI
> > > libraries because they are wrapped in single quotes, i.e.
> > > '-Lc:\Program Files\PGI/nt86/6.0/lib'.
> >
> > Hmpf.  That'll be difficult to get both fixed in _AC_PROG_FC_V_OUTPUT
> > and also all the way through Autoconf and Libtool so the embedded space
> > isn't killed (or the path broken in two arguments).
> 
> Not sure what's going on here.  I use the AC_FC_LIBRARY_LDFLAGS in my
> configure.ac and I don't get that problem.  libtool's configure must
> be quoting each of these arguments??? I should note that I had to
> patch fortran.m4 (a long time ago) to handle a case where the library
> was butted up against a single quote such as 'blah blah -lm'.  I
> thought I sent that info to the autoconf list a while ago???

The issue you sent to the Autoconf list was slightly different, and the
patch I posted to fix it matched very narrowly (to lessen the chance of
interfering with other compilers' output, or so I must have thought back
then).

You should also note that, if you use the nightly tarballs, they are
bootstrapped with Autoconf 2.59, but aforementioned patch was added to
Autoconf after 2.59.  Hopefully, Autoconf 2.60 will be out soon.

> > Also I think we need to stick `-Mnomain' in Fortran archive_cmds
> > otherwise fcdemo will fail again.
> 
> Well, that depends on how you link.  I link my C code against the
> archived fortran code separately so without forcing automake to use
> LD=$(FC), it uses the C compiler, so I don't need -Mnomain (hence the
> use of AC_FC_LIBRARY_LDFLAGS).

Oh.  Ok.  But I think libtool has always tried not to emit a dependency
to the Fortran main function into the shared libraries it creates.  I
believe it would only be consistent if we continued to do this now.
Does it break anything?

Cheers,
Ralf