Re: [Pw_forum] more patches
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Ari P Seitsonen wrote: > > How many compilers do _not_ have an internal pre-processor these days > among the compilers supported (or, more exactly: "supported at some time in the past") by configure: only PGI and Pathscale. PGI actually has an internal pre-processor, but it is (or it was) buggy. The same might apply to Pathscale. Paolo -- Paolo Giannozzi, Dip. Scienze Matematiche Informatiche e Fisiche, Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222 ___ Pw_forum mailing list Pw_forum@pwscf.org http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
Re: [Pw_forum] more patches
Dear David [affiliation?], Paolo et alia, Just an innocent question: How many compilers do _not_ have an internal pre-processor these days or are not able to use an external one? I was compiling .F90 files some 10-15 years ago with automatic pre-processing, without the need of intermediate files, is it true that the compilers would not have adapted a default pre-processor up to now? Well, probably there are some compilers still around which might not have this built in, would it be possible to treat them as "special cases" and create these intermediate files for them as needed? Greetings, apsi -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=- Ari Paavo Seitsonen / ari.p.seitso...@iki.fi / http://www.iki.fi/~apsi/ Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS), Département de Chimie, Paris Mobile (F) : +33 789 37 24 25(CH) : +41 79 71 90 935 On Sun, 24 Apr 2016, David Strubbe wrote: Hi Paolo, My point about cpp is: Octopus (and some other codes) have been using this approach for many years on a variety of platforms. So, I don't see any reason it would cause trouble for any compilers. The issue for OSX I mention is related to the filesystem and is independent of the compiler. David On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Paolo Giannozzi wrote: First two corrections done, thank you. I recommend changing the name of your output from cpp runs to something other than .F90, since on a case-insensitive filesystem (default for Mac OSX) this is the same as the .f90 input file, which makes the compilation fail. For example, in the Octopus project we use _oct.f90. For this, we should figure out first if such change is harmless for all other compilers Paolo -- Paolo Giannozzi, Dip. Scienze Matematiche Informatiche e Fisiche, Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222 ___ Pw_forum mailing list Pw_forum@pwscf.org http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum ___ Pw_forum mailing list Pw_forum@pwscf.org http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
Re: [Pw_forum] more patches
Hello David, we will take into account this issue but not for this release. For the next one scheduled in September will try to address this problem with OSX case-insensistive file-systems. We will do our own testing to make sure nothing breaks. Cheers On Apr 24, 2016, at 7:32 PM, David Strubbe wrote: > My point about cpp is: Octopus (and some other codes) have been using this > approach for many years on a variety of platforms. So, I don't see any reason > it would cause trouble for any compilers. The issue for OSX I mention is > related to the filesystem and is independent of the compiler. -- Mr. Filippo SPIGA, M.Sc. Quantum ESPRESSO Foundation http://www.quantum-espresso.org ~ skype: filippo.spiga * Disclaimer: "Please note this message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. The contents are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the addressee. Unauthorized recipients are requested to preserve this confidentiality and to advise the sender immediately of any error in transmission." ___ Pw_forum mailing list Pw_forum@pwscf.org http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
Re: [Pw_forum] more patches
Hi Paolo, My point about cpp is: Octopus (and some other codes) have been using this approach for many years on a variety of platforms. So, I don't see any reason it would cause trouble for any compilers. The issue for OSX I mention is related to the filesystem and is independent of the compiler. David On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Paolo Giannozzi wrote: > First two corrections done, thank you. > > I recommend changing the name of your output from cpp runs to something >> other than .F90, since on a case-insensitive filesystem (default for Mac >> OSX) this is the same as the .f90 input file, which makes the compilation >> fail. For example, in the Octopus project we use _oct.f90. >> > > For this, we should figure out first if such change is harmless for all > other compilers > > Paolo > > -- > Paolo Giannozzi, Dip. Scienze Matematiche Informatiche e Fisiche, > Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy > Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222 > > > ___ > Pw_forum mailing list > Pw_forum@pwscf.org > http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum > ___ Pw_forum mailing list Pw_forum@pwscf.org http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
Re: [Pw_forum] more patches
First two corrections done, thank you. I recommend changing the name of your output from cpp runs to something > other than .F90, since on a case-insensitive filesystem (default for Mac > OSX) this is the same as the .f90 input file, which makes the compilation > fail. For example, in the Octopus project we use _oct.f90. > For this, we should figure out first if such change is harmless for all other compilers Paolo -- Paolo Giannozzi, Dip. Scienze Matematiche Informatiche e Fisiche, Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222 ___ Pw_forum mailing list Pw_forum@pwscf.org http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum
