Re: 980727: configure failure after checking for fort77

Clark,

> From: Clark Safford <address@hidden>
> Subject: netcdf-3.3.1.tar.Z
> Organization: NOAA/National Weather Service (NWS)
> Keywords: 199807280032.SAA09007 netcdf-3.3.1.tar.Z configure

In the above message, you wrote:

> I was installing netcdf-3.3.1.tar.Z on my system when ./configure
> failed right after checking for fort77 for SUB...  I corrected the
> problem by changing configure's FFFLAGS to -O2.  Not being an expert
> on fortran, I have no idea if my way around the problem is correct.
> I did notice a message in the log that POSIX demands -O level.
> 
> ./configure
> 
> creating cache ./config.cache
> checking for m4... m4
> checking for xlc... no
> checking for c89... c89
> checking C compiler... works
> checking how to make dependencies... false
> checking for CC... CC
> checking C++ compiler "CC"... works
> checking how to run the C preprocessor... c89 -E
> checking for fort77... fort77
> checking for FORTRAN .F compiler... 
> checking if FORTRAN compiler handles *.F files... yes
> checking for C-equivalent to FORTRAN routine "SUB"... 
> <stopped here>
> 
> ./config.log
> 
> This file contains any messages produced by compilers while
> running configure, to aid debugging if configure makes a mistake.
> 
> configure:1017: c89 -c -O -DNDEBUG conftest.c 1>&5
> configure:1150: CC -c  -DNDEBUG conftest.C 1>&5
> configure:1217: c89 -E -DNDEBUG conftest.c >/dev/null 2>conftest.out
> configure:1370: fort77 -c -O conftest.f
> fort77: POSIX 1003.2 mandates opt level following -O; expected values 0-4,
>    received: conftest.f; ignored
> configure:1415: fort77 -o conftest -O conftest.F  -lU77
> fort77: POSIX 1003.2 mandates opt level following -O; expected values 0-4,
>    received: conftest.F; ignored
> configure:1456: fort77 -c -O conftest.f
> fort77: POSIX 1003.2 mandates opt level following -O; expected values 0-4,
>    received: conftest.f; ignored

Interesting.  I believe you did the right thing (I assume it built OK
after setting FFLAGS to "-O2" -- please tell me if it didn't).

What system was this on (e.g. "uname -a")?

--------
Steve Emmerson   <http://www.unidata.ucar.edu>