From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15527 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2008 14:26:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 13662 invoked by uid 48); 8 Dec 2008 14:25:05 -0000 Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20081208142505.13661.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/35707] Search /usr/local/include and /usr/include for .mod files In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg00736.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #9 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-08 14:25 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > A semi-proper place for .mod files is: > /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/4.4/finclude/ > (Semi because finclude does not distinguish between e.g. 32bit and 64bit.) > Isn't (...)/x86_64-(...) enough to tell that it is 64 bits (besides /usr/lib64) ? My opinion is that the proper way to distribute fortran so-called "headers" is via interfaces in fortran files, not via modules. If we add a "standard" place for fortran modules, everybody will use it, and it will raise countless problems (need to provide several modules versions for different compiler versions, doesn't work if the compiler is upgraded, ...) In short, I agree with FX. :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35707