[mpich-discuss] mpifort wrapper compiler?

[Pavan Balaji]

OK.  I’ll run this by BillG as well.  I’ve created a ticket:

https://trac.mpich.org/projects/mpich/ticket/1986

It’s a little more complicated than I initially thought (it’s not a simple symbolic link).  So we’ll not do this for 3.1, which we are in the process of finalizing.

— Pavan

On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:

> On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> 
>> Will the following tradeoff be acceptable to everyone?
>> 
>> * We allow users to specify a Fortran compiler using “FC” and “FCFLAGS”.  This will result in a wrapper called “mpifort”.
>> 
>> * We’ll maintain mpif90 as a symbolic link to mpifort for backward compatibility.
>> 
>> * If no separate F77 compiler is specified, we’ll use FC as the F77 compiler as well.  In this case, mpif77 will be a symbolic link to mpifort.
>> 
>> * But users have the ability to provide a separate F77 compiler, in which case a new mpif77 is created.
>> 
>> This way, we can still support compilers that have a different F77 compiler.  But for most compilers there’ll be a single mpifort (with mpif90 and mpif77 symbolic links for backward compatibility for some time).
> 
> That sounds perfect.
> 
> -- 
> 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

--
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji