Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!ufqtp!bernhold
From: bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: CPP "problems"
Message-ID: <1301@red8.qtp.ufl.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 91 01:49:35 GMT
References: <1300@red8.qtp.ufl.edu> <1991Feb19.003449.1768@ariel.unm.edu> <1108@riscsm.scripps.edu>
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, Univ. of Florida
Lines: 50

In article <1108@riscsm.scripps.edu> mikec@scripps.edu (Mike A Christensen) writes:
>I think we have a misunderstanding here, from my communication with Cray
>software development, they are REPLACING the functionality of CPP with a
>mostly equivalent (i.e. should take most C preprocessor directives) fortran
>preprocessor.  This preprocessor will know about Fortran comments (especially
>ones that begin with CRAY in CC1...) and various other problems with using
>the C preprocessor on Fortran code.  I did the same panic when I saw the
>comment from CF77 about ".F" files going away and not automatically running
>the C preprocessor, and it took me several phone calls to finally get what
>the "real" answer was.

If this is the case, I'm not suprised "we" have a misunderstanding.
When I invoke cf77 4.0 on my local YMP running unicos 5.1 as 'cf77 -c
-dp mchprm.F', I get the following messages:

Warning: -d option is being deleted; Use -Wf option.
WARNING!  C Preprocessor support in cf77 will be deleted in next release.

Notice how in the case of -dp, it tells me to look for an alternative,
while it simply says CPP support is being deleted.  Period.  What is
one supposed to think?  If they really are replacing CPP with an
equivalent, why say its being deleted?

If there are less subtle changes which the user will notice, but
similar functionality will somehow be available, why say its being
deleted?  Why not include a section in the man page explaining the
forthcoming change & refer cf77 users to it?  The warning could say
"changed" rather than "deleted", if that were appropriate.

To my mind, they've done something stupid either way:  Either they are
removing support for a useful, common feature of unix systems, or they
_said_ they were and didn't really mean it.

Technically, it is not a substantial problem, as I've already modified
my Cray makefiles to do the CPP step separately -- though it
distinguished the rules from those on all of the other unix systems I
work with and consequently requires special handling when I build or
install codes.

My concern is with the philosophy behind the decision and what it
might indicate about the future of unix on Crays.  This appears to be
a step _away_ from the homogeneity across different systems which has
been developing over the years.  When you develop and run large codes
on numerous different machines, homogeneity of the user environment
can be _very_ important in keeping one's sanity!
-- 
David Bernholdt			bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu
Quantum Theory Project		bernhold@ufpine.bitnet
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611		904/392 6365