Home > Archive > Fortran > November 2005 > Why pgf90 can not recognize some intrinsic function when compiling?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Why pgf90 can not recognize some intrinsic function when compiling?
|
|
| Leo.Aries.G@gmail.com 2005-11-27, 3:57 am |
| HI,Now I am learning to use pgf90 + redhat9 to compile some f90
program.
Here below is some part of the codes:
" implicit none
intrinsic eof
.....
open(1,file=filename)
do while(.not.eof(1))
..... "
such codes can be compiler by compaq visual fortran, But when I compile
it using pgi
"pgf90 -o a a.f90"
some instrucion given as below:
"GF90-S-0126-Name eof is not an intrinsic function "
My question is ; Since Eof is a intrinsic function included in Fortran
Lib,
Why CVF can but pgi can not recognize it?
Thanks!
| |
| Tim Prince 2005-11-27, 3:57 am |
| Leo.Aries.G@gmail.com wrote:
> HI,Now I am learning to use pgf90 + redhat9 to compile some f90
> program.
> Here below is some part of the codes:
> " implicit none
> intrinsic eof
> .....
> open(1,file=filename)
> do while(.not.eof(1))
> ..... "
>
> such codes can be compiler by compaq visual fortran, But when I compile
> it using pgi
> "pgf90 -o a a.f90"
> some instrucion given as below:
> "GF90-S-0126-Name eof is not an intrinsic function "
>
> My question is ; Since Eof is a intrinsic function included in Fortran
> Lib,
> Why CVF can but pgi can not recognize it?
>
> Thanks!
>
Not all Fortran compilers implement all of the more obscure extensions
supported by CVF. In this case; it would appear that the ways supported
under the standard, for the last 25 years, should be preferred to an
older extension supported by only a few compilers. I note that the
description of this function is presented in an off color in the
documentation I have, denoting an "extension to the F95 standard."
| |
| Leo.Aries.G@gmail.com 2005-11-27, 7:56 am |
| Thanks! Could you tell me what document can give some instruction about
all
the extension of f90 and where I can find it?
| |
| Duane Bozarth 2005-11-27, 7:00 pm |
| "Leo.Aries.G@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> Thanks! Could you tell me what document can give some instruction about
> all
> the extension of f90 and where I can find it?
The language reference manual for the compiler you use should identify
any extensions it includes.
| |
| Dan Nagle 2005-11-27, 7:00 pm |
| Hello,
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> "Leo.Aries.G@gmail.com" wrote:
>
>
>
> The language reference manual for the compiler you use should identify
> any extensions it includes.
Duane Bozarth's reply is absolutely correct, let me amplify
it a bit.
By definition, a compiler's particular extensions are not documented
anywhere other than that compiler's documentation. It's tautological.
The _sole_ exception is when one vendor claims to have reproduced
the extensions of another. Even then, the prudent programmer
will check the original compiler's documentation to see what
the original compiler actually did.
All too often, when one compiler duplicates another's extensions,
it means little more than "the customer who requested this feature
is now satisfied" rather than an exact duplication.
One strength of the standards *process* is that there is
an interpretations scheme, whereby differences in interpretation
may be definitively resolved. Extensions are what they are.
One must test in order to understand completely.
--
Cheers!
Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|