> I just read your contribution to the 2005 gcc summit about gfortran
> and HIRLAM. The two PRs(18283 and 21034) you wrote about are now
> fixed. LOC is now available. That just leaves some of the extra
> functionality of FLUSH(IOSTAT?), does it not? Would it compile
> completely if I were to add that functionality?
I still have to construct a bug report of something that confuses the
parser and that basically looks like this:
IMPLICIT CHARACTER*8 (Y)
CHARACTER*11 Y1, Y2, Y3
...
YA = 'D' // Y1 // Y2(1:3) // Y3(1:3) //
1 // YB(1:5)
1
Unclassifiable statement at (1)
Unfortunately, if I reduce the code to this one (continued) line and the
necessary declarations, it doesn't fail ;-)
All the other problems are with non-standard code (like flush, getarg,
et al.), where I have to find standard-conforming solutions. Note that
I'm used to the fact that with almost all OS/compiler combinations we
have to make a few local mods, because different compilers support
different extensions (not surprising ...)
> Given the scale of your code, it would be a triumph worth reporting if
> we could get it up and running with gfortran.
Yep. I'm convinced that by the time we hold the 2006 GCC summit I can
not only compile all of HIRLAM, but present a running example and
profiled runs, to direct optimizations.
Cheers,
--
Toon Moene, KNMI, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 2206443; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
