[mpich-discuss] mpich2-1.0.7 file mpif.h and fortran compiler g95

[Broeders, Cornelis]

I think this argument indicates that my proposal is not generally usable. On the other hand, the type of coding of mcnpx (reduced to a simple example in one of my mails) is quite convenient and works with most compiler. I am not familiar with typical including of "special cases" in mpich2 coding strategy, but would it be possible to control the "SAVE" statements by a "configure" parameter to avoid "manual patching" of mpih.f in this special case?
C. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mpich-discuss at mcs.anl.gov on behalf of Rajeev Thakur
Sent: Mon 10/13/2008 9:46 PM
To: mpich-discuss at mcs.anl.gov
Subject: RE: [mpich-discuss] mpich2-1.0.7 file mpif.h and fortran compiler g95
 
> > ----- "cornelis broeders" <cornelis.broeders at web.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello,
> > > I encountered the error message "SAVE statement at (1) follows blanket
> > > SAVE statement"  during installation of the huge package mcnpx. After
> > > some efforts I found that this message is generally issued by g95 (and
> > > gfortran?) if a program with a previous "save" statement includes a
> > > file, like mpif.h, containing  "save var" statements. Putting the SAVE
> > > statements of mpif.h in an exclude construct "#ifndef G95  ... #endif
> > > solved my problem. I propose to include such kind of patch for g95 in
> > > future releases of mpich2. Could somebody comment on this proposal?

This assumes that the user's code has a blanket save statement. How would we
know that beforehand?

Rajeev