Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

This web mail archive is frozen.

This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.

You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails have been added to it since July of 2016.

Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] non-portable code in examples/Makefile
From: Jeffrey Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-21 06:47:21


On Feb 21, 2012, at 6:39 AM, TERRY DONTJE wrote:

>> Heads up that in the upcoming fortran revamp, we *only* use FC. I.E., there's only mpifort wrapper compiler (mpif77 and mpif90 still exist, but only as sym links to mpifort, signifying that mpifort is the way of the future).
>>
>> This was done because there have been no f77 compilers for decades (literally), and no f90 compilers for 10+ years. All the fortran compiler vendors have long-since moved to a single compiler executable name (e.g., ifort, gfortran), so mpifort just reflects that.
>>
> Hmmm, well Oracle's compiler is still named f90 :-). (now to duck and cover)

Yes, multiple vendors still have <foo>f90 (and/or <foo>f77)-named compilers. But these are just multiple entry points to a common back end, usually for legacy reasons (just like we'll still have mpif90 and mpif77).

Another fun fact: MPI-1 was never compliant with Fortran 77. The most obvious/easiest point to cite is that F77 only allowed 6-character variable and subroutine names. :-)

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/