search for: fortran2003

...ted by a length going at the end of the arglist. If gfortran was the only compiler around, I'd say this would be the least painful route, but still no fun since it requires changes to a lot of user code (in packages too). It is not clear if this approach works with other Fortrans. - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) - move towards the LAPACKE C interface -- but that also adds onionskin ov...

On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 06:42:47PM +0200, Thomas K?nig wrote: > > > - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability > > -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many > > understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will > > it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) > > That would actually be fairly eas...

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:55 AM Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/4/19 6:49 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 06:42:47PM +0200, Thomas K?nig wrote: > >>> - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability > >>> -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many > >>> understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will > >>> it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) > >> That w...

On 5/4/19 6:49 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 06:42:47PM +0200, Thomas K?nig wrote: >>> - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability >>> -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many >>> understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will >>> it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) >> That would actually be fai...

...nful route, but still no fun since it requires changes to a lot of user code (in packages too). It is not clear if this approach works with other Fortrans. The interesting thing is that this convention goes back to at least f2c, which was modeled on the very first Unix compiler. > - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) That would actually be fairly easy. If you declare the subroutines BIND(...

On 5/6/19 12:57 PM, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:55 AM Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/4/19 6:49 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: >>> On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 06:42:47PM +0200, Thomas K?nig wrote: >>>>> - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability >>>>> -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many >>>>> understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will >>>>> it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) >>&gt...

Hi Tomas, thanks a lot for your analysis. I have created https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329 for this, and put you in CC (if your e-mail address for GCC bugzilla is still current). Regards Thomas