Clive Page wrote:
>
> I append a message from Robert Corbett of Sun Microsystems Inc.
> ([log in to unmask]) <snip>
> =====================================================================
>
> The 1.x releases of Sun f90 have placed information about modules
> defined in a source file name /filename/./f90-suffix/, where
> /filename/ and /f90-suffix/ are meta-names, in files named
> "/filename/.M". Sun inherited this scheme from Cray Research,
> on whose work Sun's compiler is based. During compilation, the
> compiler searches all files that end with a .M suffix in the
> directories implicitly or explicitly specified by the user
> looking for information about modules.
> <snip>
I slightly prefer the .M scheme as it is easier for me to see
what's going on in my source directories just by listing files.
As I put one module in one file the difference is very small and
I wouldn't mind very much if the .M scheme were to be abandoned.
In principle I could use the .M scheme in makefile rules, but due
to one file - one module rule it is more reasonable to define only
dependencies on object files. And that's portable between different
module info naming conventions.
> a single .M file
> for the entire library can be created simply by concatenating
> the .M files created by the compiler for each of the source files.
That's a nice property. I never saw it mentioned in the docs (not
that I looked for it - I assumed .M files use some internal formats,
not meant to be known outside Sun, likely to change etc.). It would
be a fairly valuable feature if it stays with us.
Regards,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Artur Swietanowski mailto:[log in to unmask]
Institut fuer Statistik, Operations Research und Computerverfahren,
Universitaet Wien, Universitaetsstr. 5, A-1010 Wien, Austria
tel. +43 (1) 407 63 55 - 120 fax +43 (1) 406 41 59
----------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|