| Re: Compatibility of MOD files |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: comp.lang.fortran · Group Profile
Author: Gordon SandeGordon Sande Date: Jan 24, 2008 09:48
> On Jan 24, 7:14Â am, Paul van Delst noaa.gov> wrote:
> >>
>> Better yet, don't use .mod suffixes in your Fortran95 makefiles.
>
> I think it is a bad advice. .mod files are dependancies and have to be
> recreated in many cases. If you do not account for such cases in your
> building script, be it a makefile or something else, you might get
> errors.
> The following like was posted on c.l.f some time ago:
> http://www.nicdan.id.au/computers/compiling/recompile.html
> It addresses the issue of including .mod files in makefiles and
> avoiding unnecessary recompilation.
>
> Cheers,
> Victor.
The issue of dual dependency not being dealt with very well by MAKE
has been noted in other contexts. The MacOs file system had both
data and resource forks in a file. The development environment
for MacOs, called MPW for Mac Programmers Workbench, had extensions
to their version of MAKE to let the two components of a file be
constructed under the MAKE type rules. The current MacOsX has
machinery for making a whole folder look like a file to achieve the
same ends.
MPW is now one of the dearly departed but the weaknesses of MAKE have
become part of the reality of Fortran 90 development. None of this is
a solution to the problem but rather an observation that the weaknesses
of MAKE for similar problems have been noted before. MPW had the luxury
of adding their extensions but the rest of us mere mortals will have
to put up with various hacks to get the dual dependency.
| 
