[mpich-discuss] mpifort wrapper compiler?

[Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)]

On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> It’s very unlikely we’ll drop F77 separation.  

Just curious -- why?  Fortran compiler vendors themselves are consolidating down to single executable names: ifort, pgifort, gfortran, ... etc.

This was one of the main motivations for OMPI: we're reflecting what the underlying compiler is, not adding our own distinctions on top of them.  If the underlying compiler distinguishes between free/fixed form via the .suffix, then we (MPI implementations) shouldn't change that.

I guess my question is: why would you use "mpif77" instead of "mpifort"?  Or, put differently, what do you need to compile with mpif77 that would not compile properly with mpifort?

> F90 and F08 separation might not be a big issue, but we’ll likely just maintain them as separate symbolic links to mpifort.  For now, we could add a symbolic link from mpifort to mpif90.
> 
> FWIW, we already use FC and FCFLAGS for F90+.  But we still use F77 for F77 compilers.

Keep in mind that there have not been any "Fortran 77" compilers for over 30 years.

The distinction is artificial and arbitrary...

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/