This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
[Re: RFC POSIX Fortran Interface]
- From: Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>
- To: Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 2007年10月14日 17:11:00 -0700
- Subject: [Re: RFC POSIX Fortran Interface]
Walter Spector wrote:
Jerry DeLisle wrote:
...
Ideally, to me anyway, a user ought to be able to just have "use pxf_interface
in their own code and have the compiler just do it without need for a compiler
option (an intrinsic module)...
I would argue against this for two reasons:
1.) POSIX-1003.9 was written against Fortran-77, where modules did not exist.
Therefore we should not require that a module be USEd in order to use the routines.
Yes, agree, I forgot about that. Needs to be usable for F77 codes.
2.) POSIX-1003.9 failed to provide a suggested name for a Fortran-90 module.
So while a module is extremely useful to help the programmer get the calls right
(and perhaps use keyword=value argument style), there is no consensus on what
the correct name for the module should be. For example, in the Intel compiler,
Intel supplies a module called IFPOSIX. On IRIX, Cray, and the Open64 compilers,
the module is called PXF_DEFINITIONS... (I should note that in the latter case,
the library was written by a member of the 1003.9 committee.)
I will take this into consideration.
Thanks, BTW I have many more constants in the list now, a little over 200 and I
have the bsearch working correctly as well.
Jerry