From MSchwartz at mn.rr.com  Wed Jun 15 14:49:38 2005
From: MSchwartz at mn.rr.com (Marc Schwartz)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:49:38 -0500
Subject: [Rd] R 2.1.1 slated for June 20
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0506150740430.17433@gannet.stats>
References: <x264wmbe6m.fsf@turmalin.kubism.ku.dk>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0506101407430.4262@gannet.stats>
	<1118773739.3126.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0506142109440.5934@gannet.stats>
	<1118781268.3126.44.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<x28y1ca985.fsf@turmalin.kubism.ku.dk>
	<1118787388.3968.19.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<3BEE2B99-F495-4320-BD7D-242C64F60245@r-project.org>
	<1118808521.9457.20.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0506150740430.17433@gannet.stats>
Message-ID: <1118839778.9457.33.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 07:51 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> Our preference is F77 compilers over F9x ones, as the lists Simon showed 
> reflects - we decided to prefer F95 to F90 in future, though.
> 
> My experience is that g77 from gcc-3.4.x is preferable to gfortran.
> As I said earlier, once gcc-4.0.1 is released (and so R builds with a 
> released version of gcc-4.x.y - 4.0.0 needs worarounds)  I will take a 
> another look.  So far, using gcc-3.4.4 is both faster and more accurate 
> that gcc-4.0.0.  There are a few instances in which loess gives rather 
> different results with gfortran, but they are only visible by diffing
> postscript files.
> 
> I will look into converting blas.f to F77 (but not for this release).

<snip>

I have re-installed g77 and re-compiled from scratch with it.

Unless the FC folks have backported gcc-3.4 updates to gcc-3.2, that
update appears to not be imminent, as the FC devel tree (rawhide) is
still at gcc-3.2.

Best regards,

Marc



[Rd] R 2.1.1 slated for June 20
Marc Schwartz