[petsc-dev] mpifort versus mpif90

[Jed Brown]

Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> writes:

> On Sat, 3 Jun 2017, Jed Brown wrote:
>
>> We only need one FC now and the preferred executable name is mpifort
>> (other variants like mpif90 are deprecated in both MPICH and Open MPI).
>> I would just add this everywhere we currently have mpif90 but the code
>> is already super convoluted and I'd rather simplify if possible.  Does
>> anyone use --with-gnu-compilers versus --with-vendor-compilers?  Is it
>> tested anywhere?
>
> Its not tested in the nightlybuilds - but I've seen these options (esp
> with-gnu-compilers) used in configure.log sent by users.
>
> I'm not a fan of this interface - and won't miss it if removed.
> [its a bit ambiguous when one does stuff like: '--with-gnu-compilers=1 --with-mpi-dir=.']
>
> A related issue is - how does one specify compatible compilers [for
> c/c++/fortran]

--with-mpi-dir or specify each directly CC=cc FC=fort
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20170603/2dfa1bf2/attachment.sig>