[mpich-discuss] mpifort wrapper compiler?
wgropp at illinois.edu
Fri Dec 13 08:25:03 CST 2013
This seems fine.
Director, Parallel Computing Institute
Deputy Director for Research
Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies
Thomas M. Siebel Chair in Computer Science
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:28 AM, Pavan Balaji wrote:
> OK. I’ll run this by BillG as well. I’ve created a ticket:
> 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:
> Pavan Balaji
> discuss mailing list discuss at mpich.org
> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss