[mpich-discuss] mpifort wrapper compiler?

[Jeff Hammond]

> On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:46 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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...
> 

I suppose you'd say we no longer need a C89 compiler as long as we have a C++03 compiler?

Do _strictly_ F2008 compilers support Hollerith constants, entry points, and computed goto?

In short, I disagree with the assumptions you're making that lead to this statement.

Jeff

> -- 
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres at cisco.com
> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss