Re: Fortran 9x: time for a decision

[Kate Hedstrom]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 06:57:21PM -0500, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Andreas Buening wrote:
> > Not really. If you have preprocessed Fortran files then "finding a
> > compiler" means "finding a compiler with preprocessing". Otherwise
> > that compiler is useless (and you should proceed with your search).
> 
> If you have C-preprocessed Fortran files, then they are not written in
> Fortran.  I agree that preprocessed Fortran is an important language to
> support and one for which I would love to see autoconf support added in
> the future (perhaps via an AC_PROG_FC_CPP macro or whatever), but that's
> simply not the problem I'm proposing to address right now.

Our experience has been that using a cpp style of preprocessor with
Fortan is simply not portable enough for us to trust the Fortran
vendors. We write the Makefile rules to invoke cpp ourselves. Even then
we can't always find a cpp that does the job and we carry around source
code for one that works. Just today I found a Cray "feature" where
/opt/ctl/bin/cpp added spaces during substitution, creating something
that isn't legal Fortran. Their f90's built-in fpp won't do recursive
includes - and they like it that way. It boggles the mind.

Kate
-- 
Kate Hedström       Arctic Region Supercomputing Center
address@hidden       University of Alaska, Fairbanks