On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Pavan Balaji <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Jeff Hammond <[email protected]> wrote:

It is important to separate out the F77 wrapper from the F90+ one to support the case where the F77 compiler cannot handle F90+ code and vice versa. The IBM compiler is this way because of fixed/free source form handling.

I'm not sure I understand this -- my understanding is that compilers differentiate between the different forms of Fortran (fixed vs. free) via the .suffix.

This is very much in line with compilers like ifort, pgifort, etc.

xl is in a league of it’s own. :-)

Maybe they’ll fix it in future versions. But we can’t abandon it if that’s the way it is right now. Many users still use those compilers.

There is nothing to be fixed. XLF is extremely strict about language syntax. You cannot give it source that isn't compliant with one and only one Fortran standard. People that don't use XLF on a daily basis should not make wild generalizations based upon Intel and GCC, both of which are notorious sleezeballs when it comes to language specification enforcement. For example, gfortran will accept inline C syntax in some cases... Jeff

— Pavan

-- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss