Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95

Paul Van Delst wrote:

I think you have to recompile a whole module if you change any component
of it. Since my "user interface" is to edit the source, I want fast turnaround.


Yes, but your module only contains interface blocks. (At least, that's what I thought we were talking about here.)

No. I'm pursuing Walter Spector's suggestion of trying to fit all the source code into a module in order not to have to fool with explicit interfaces, and accepting the fact that a lot of dead code may get linked.

The type checking requirement was never stated (at least, I
didn't see it, sorry).
I never mixed types in procedure calls in f77
back in the day, so type checking of f90/95 has never been that big of a wow-factor for me.

I use only integer and double precision, and stick to traditional naming conventions, but I frequently monkey with my code, and sometimes change the argument list of a subroutine. ftnchek handily finds places where old code that calls the subroutine has not been updated.

Type mismatches can be particularly devastating, since they fall into the category of addressing errors that can cause failure at a point remote from the defective line of code. My debugging methods, based on write statements, do not work well with this kind of error, so I want a programming environment that can exclude them.
.

Relevant Pages