[MITgcm-support] MITgcm on Cygwin and MacOS X

[Ed Hill]

On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 19:42, samar khatiwala wrote:
> Ed et al
> 
> Could you (or someone else) explain the rationale behind explicitly
> calling cpp? All compilers I am aware of call cpp before parsing the
> code. What is so special about compiling this code that makes this
> necessary?
> 
> Most recently I have been running the MIT model on an a G5 XServe with the
> IBM xlf compiler. xlf (possibly even pgf) gives you the option of saving
> the "small f" file it creates after running cpp. Optionally, it will also
> preppend a "F" before the file name so it does not matter whether you
> have HFS or UFS.
> 
> There are good reasons to stick with HFS+. Unlike UFS it is journaled and
> with some (minor) effort it too can be made case sensitive.


Hi Samar,

I don't know the history, I'm still fairly new here.  *grin*

But I do know that not all pre-processors or compilers are created
equal.  As you pointed out, separation of the two allows one to use, for
instance, Gnu CPP in cases where a particular Fortran compiler either
lacks or has an incompatible pre-processor.

And why change it?  It would, in all likelihood, create many problems
but what good would it do?  The benefits you suggest ("small f" files)
we are now getting by creating smarter Makefiles.

Ed


-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office:  MIT Dept. of EAPS;  Room 54-1424;  77 Massachusetts Ave.
            Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
email:   eh3 at mit.edu,  ed at eh3.com
URL:     http://web.mit.edu/eh3/
phone:   617-253-0098
fax:     617-253-4464
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/attachments/20040409/a53b200e/attachment.sig>