Hi Ralf.

On Monday 09 May 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, May 09, 2011 at 02:11:53PM CEST:

> > --- a/automake.in

> > +++ b/automake.in

> > @@ -939,7 +939,7 @@ register_language ('name' => 'f77',

> > 'lder' => 'F77LD',

> > 'ld' => '$(F77)',

> > 'pure' => 1,

> > - 'extensions' => ['.f', '.for']);

> > + 'extensions' => ['.f']);

> >

> > # Fortran

> > register_language ('name' => 'fc',

> > @@ -957,7 +957,7 @@ register_language ('name' => 'fc',

> > 'lder' => 'FCLD',

> > 'ld' => '$(FC)',

> > 'pure' => 1,

> > - 'extensions' => ['.f90', '.f95', '.f03', '.f08']);

> > + 'extensions' => ['.for', '.f90', '.f95', '.f03', '.f08']);

> >

> > # Preprocessed Fortran

> > register_language ('name' => 'ppfc',

>

> Sorry, but this is not a good change, and it is backward-incompatible

> (even if .for might not have been used much in practice).

>

Sorry if I hadn't been clear: my intention was *not* for this patch to be

applied to the automake official repository; it was just intended as a quick

workaround for Peter. See also my other mail in this thread.

> My intention with the recent Autoconf Fortran changes was to go ahead

> and let Automake grab those extensions for $(FC) for which an

> AC_FC_SRCEXT was issued. And assume preprocessing for those where

> AC_FC_PP_SRCEXT was issued for. But that is a bigger change.

>

My fortran fu is pretty weak, so I'm happily going to follow your lead

here.

> Cheers, and sorry for my really slow catchup

> (also, all of my mail from yesterday got stuck somewhere...)

>

Too bad :-(

> Ralf

>

Regards,

Stefano