[surjan@chem.elte.hu: x86_64 fortran]

[Andrew Pinski]

> 
> On Friday 16 July 2004 05:41 pm, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 05:29:18PM -0400, Douglas Cox wrote:
> > > Well, g95 is free, and it certainly appears to be a GNU production, if
> > > you check the source files.
> >
> > If you equate "GNU production" with "uses the GPL", then I suppose
> > you can claim g95 is a GNU production.  Andy slapped the GPL onto
> > the code, yet does not folloiw the tenets of the GPL.  If you mean
> > "GNU production" as in a "FSF sponsored project", then no g95 is
> > not a GNU production.
> 
> How does this affect your view on the porting of code from g95 to gfortran? I 
> don't remember any objections being raised.  Seems like, in your view, it 
> would be "tainting" gfortran...


Some of the code now will be "tainting" but some of the older code is not "tainted"
at all and can be ported.


Andrew Pinski
Just a gcc bug master who keeps track of gcc bugs (including fortran ones)