[MITgcm-support] G95 build issue: f2c name mangling

[David Ferreira]

Hi,

I run into exactly the same problem as Mark with g95 (including the
-fnosecond-unsderscore solving the MITgcm compilation but screwing
up the netcdf package)

So I tried the -ignoretime option of genmake2 and it didn't change anything:
there is still an error with a "_user_time__" in timers.o (.F) and a 
"_user_time_"
in timer_stats.o (.c)

-ignoretime triggers a -DIGNORE_TIME flag which only appears
in timers.F. This flag seems to disable the functionality of the
time stuff, but not the definitions of the variables.
However adding a "ifndef  IGNORE_TIME" around the definitions
seems to do the trick, but that would need to be checked in (and the time
utilities are lost)

As for Chris' suggestion,  there are already a userTime and systemTime
variable defined in the timers.F subroutine. I don't really understand
what's going on in this subroutine, but could a  brutal change such as
(userTime,systemTime)  --> (toto,tutu)
and then
(user_time, system_time) --> (usertime,systemtime)
work ?

cheers,
david


chris hill wrote:

> Mark,
>
>  Can you try changing
>
>  system_time ==> systemtime
>  user_time   ==> usertime
>
>  in timers.F and timer_stats.c.
>
>  If I understood Ed correctly that should make the gnu linker happy. 
> If it seems to work for you we can try and change it permanently - it 
> shouldn't break anything else.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> Mark Hadfield wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your reply, Ed.
>>
>> I agree that's irritating to have to go to so much trouble for a few 
>> function calls that have no bearing on the results. Still, the time 
>> info is moderately interesting.
>>
>> I've discovered the reason for the inconsistency between g77 and g95 
>> (the bit that was really bugging me). With the combination of 
>> preprocessor symbols that applies on g77 and g95, the functions 
>> system_time, user_time and timenow are declared but never called. G95 
>> writes their names to the object file with the "U" (undefined) flag, 
>> but g77 omits them. If I add a call to the system_time and user_time 
>> functions, then g77 fails in the same way as g95. It's arguable which 
>> is the more correct and user-friendly behaviour, but basically it's 
>> an error in the code.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support



-- 

Ferreira David               Tel : 617 253 7967 
EAPS Room 54-1515,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA, 02139