[Developers] Not overriding the user's F77 specification
schnetter at uni-tuebingen.de
Tue Jan 20 04:53:25 CST 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 11:36, Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Erik Schnetter wrote:
> > I suggest to set F77 to F90 only if the user has not explicitly
> > specified F77. This is e.g. useful on the Regatta, where one wants
> > to use different Fortran compilers for .f and .f90 files.
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Tom Goodale wrote:
> > If we do that, we should run the symbol name detector on both and
> > stop on an error if the F77 and F90 compilers use different naming
> > schemes.
> Why would we need to stop? Why not use the F77 mangling when calling
> F77 routines from C/C++ and the F90 mangling when calling F90
> routines from C/C++? Granted, having F77 call F90 or vice versa
> probably wouldn't work, but being able to get between the C/C++ an
> Fortran "universes" would I think still be useful. Or am I missing
> something obvious...?
Fortran 90 is a superset of Fortran 77. Your suggestion is, well, in a
way similar to using different calling convertions for C and for extern
"C" routines in C++... When the Fortan 77 and the Fortran 90 compiler
use different calling schemes, then they are incompatible. I don't see
much point in trying to work around that.
But one important step that we do not take at the moment is checking
whether the symbol name detector is correct. For pgf90 and certain
compiler flags it gets the scheme wrong. Instead of grepping on the
executable, it should try to compile and link actual code.
Erik Schnetter <schnetter at aei.mpg.de> http://www.aei.mpg.de/~eschnett/
My email is as private as my paper mail. I therefore support encrypting
and signing email messages. Get my PGP key from www.keyserver.net.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Developers