Hi,

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scot Breitenfeld" <[email protected]>
> To: "HDF Users Discussion List" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, 19 August, 2016 16:31:06
> Subject: Re: [Hdf-forum] Best Way to Patch HDF5 1.8.17 to compile with nagfor

>>> NAG Fortran Compiler Release 6.0(Hibiya) Build 1064
>>> Error: H5_ff.F90, line 396: Implicit type for FORTRAN_INTEGER_8
>>>       detected at FORTRAN_INTEGER_8@)
>>> Warning: H5_ff.F90, line 424: Symbol FORTRAN_INTEGER_8 referenced but never 
>>> set
>>> [NAG Fortran Compiler pass 1 error termination, 1 error, 1 warning]
>>> make[5]: *** [H5_ff.lo] Error 1
>> 
>> Perhaps this is due to NAG's weirdness (kind(0.0d0) is 2, not 8). Here is the
>> bit of the configure run, and find attached the config.log:
> 
just in case: "NAG's weirdness" is optional. Adding "-kind=byte" to FCFLAG 
switches from "sequentiell" to "byte" enumeration. make check will still fail 
though.

Regards, Frank.

PS: 
v1.10 (svn, patch1) won't compile with nagfor6.1. gcc4.8.5 and  "-kind=byte" 
... 
Error: tH5T_F03.F90, line 1178: C_LOC array argument is REAL(KIND=16), this 
kind type parameter is not interoperable

Apart from that, Makefiles contain
$(PPFCCOMPILE) -c -o $@ $(FCFLAGS)  

$(PPFCCOMPILE) contains already $(FCFLAGS), so duplicates flags. nagfor would 
refuse duplicate "-kind" flags. 



_______________________________________________
Hdf-forum is for HDF software users discussion.
[email protected]
http://lists.hdfgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/hdf-forum_lists.hdfgroup.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/hdf5
  • [Hdf-for... Thompson, Matt (GSFC-610.1)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]
    • Re:... Scot Breitenfeld
      • ... Thompson, Matt (GSFC-610.1)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]
      • ... Thompson, Matt (GSFC-610.1)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]
        • ... Scot Breitenfeld
          • ... Thompson, Matt (GSFC-610.1)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]
            • ... Scot Breitenfeld
              • ... Schluenzen, Frank
                • ... Scot Breitenfeld

Reply via email to