[mpich-discuss] mpifort wrapper compiler?

[Jeff Hammond]

I recall offhand that .F is for code requiring preprocessor and .f not. 

I recall numerically-adorned suffixes do not do anything useful but I'll need to verify that. 

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:59 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm unfamiliar with the xl suite -- don't they have xlf that handles .f, .f90, and .F90 source files?
> 
> 
>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> 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.
>> 
>> — Pavan
>> 
>> --
>> Pavan Balaji
>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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