Netcdf fortran prefers the f03 module over the f90 module. They contain the
same interface, but f03 does so with iso_c_binding.
As you are required to link against the same compiler (if you use the
module) you should not see any shortcomings of not having f90 modules
(everything you need is in the f03 modules). The only difference is how the
module is build and not what interfaces exist.
Please, if the devs note that I am saying something wrong, please correct :)
Is there a particular reason why you want f90 and not f03?
For your latest mail, try also adding:
--disable-f03-compiler-check
2015-05-29 17:18 GMT+02:00 Carl Ponder <cponder@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> *On 05/29/2015 04:20 AM, Carl Ponder wrote:*
>
> I'm building NetCDF-F 4.4.2 with the Intel, GNU and PGI compilers, and am
> seeing this configuration setting
>
> --has-f90 -> no
>
> when I run
>
> nf-config --all
>
> * On 05/29/2015 09:31 AM, Nick Papior Andersen wrote: *
>
> What does the config.log tell you?
>
> I don't see the string has-f90 appear anywhere in the config.log or the
> regular build output.
> Digging around some more, I see these lines in the configure script:
>
> 5283 # Set the default fortran builds; default is to build f03
> 5284 *nc_build_f90=no*
> 5285 *nc_build_f03=yes*
> ......
> 5543 # Guarantee build state; f90 currently overrides f03
> 5544 if test "x$nc_build_f90" = xyes ; then
> 5545 nc_build_f03=no
> 5546 else
> 5547 nc_build_f03=yes
> 5548 fi
>
> Does this mean that NetCDF can be compiled with the F2003 interfaces or
> the F77 interfaces but not both?
> Here's what's in the include directory:
>
> *netcdf4_f03.mod* *netcdf_f03.mod*
> netcdf.mod netcdf_nf_data.mod
> netcdf4_nc_interfaces.mod netcdf_fortv2_c_interfaces.mod
> netcdf_nc_data.mod netcdf_nf_interfaces.mod
> netcdf4_nf_interfaces.mod netcdf.inc
> netcdf_nc_interfaces.mod typesizes.mod
>
> and I'd expect that it could have generated *_f90.mod files as well.
> The nf-config output doesn't suggest that this is an either-or:
>
> * --has-f90 -> no*
> * --has-f03 -> yes*
>
> --has-nc2 -> yes
> --has-nc4 -> yes
>
> Looking at the configure output, here are some lines that look relevant to
> the Fortran (I'm using GCC 5.1.0 here):
>
> configure: finding Fortran compiler
> checking whether we are using the GNU Fortran compiler... yes
> checking whether
> /shared/apps/centos-6.6_SB/OpenMPI/1.8.5/GCC-5.1.0_CUDA-7.0_HWLoc-1.10.1_NUMACtl-2.0.9/bin/mpifort
> accepts -g... yes
> checking whether we are using the GNU Fortran 77 compiler... yes
> checking whether
> /shared/apps/centos-6.6_SB/OpenMPI/1.8.5/GCC-5.1.0_CUDA-7.0_HWLoc-1.10.1_NUMACtl-2.0.9/bin/mpif77
> accepts -g... yes
> checking whether Fortran compiler is checked for ISO_C_BINDING support...
> yes
> checking for Fortran flag to compile .f90 files... none
> checking fortran 90 modules inclusion flag... -I
> checking if Fortran compiler supports Fortran 2003 ISO_C_BINDING... yes
> checking if Fortran compiler supports Fortran 2008 ISO_FORTRAN_ENV
> additions... yes
> checking if Fortran compiler supports TS29113 standard extension... yes
> checking whether F03 native code is desired... yes
> checking whether fortran type sizes should be checked... yes
> ......
> checking for C-equivalent to Fortran routine "SUB"... sub_
> checking for Fortran "byte"... yes
> checking for Fortran "integer*2"... yes
> checking if Fortran "byte" is C "signed char"... yes
> checking if Fortran "byte" is C "short"... no
> checking if Fortran "byte" is C "int"... no
> checking if Fortran "byte" is C "long"... no
> checking if Fortran "integer*2" is C "short"... yes
> checking if Fortran "integer*2" is C "int"... no
> checking if Fortran "integer*2" is C "long"... no
> checking if Fortran "integer" is C "int"... yes
> checking if Fortran "real" is C "float"... yes
> checking if Fortran "doubleprecision" is C "double"... yes
> checking for Fortran-equivalent to netCDF "byte"... byte
> checking for Fortran-equivalent to netCDF "short"... integer*2
>
>
> ------------------------------
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
> may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
> of the original message.
> ------------------------------
>
--
Kind regards Nick
