NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
Well, I build with f03 support and compile against openmpi, hdf5, parallel-netcdf. So you will/should not have any problems. :) 2015-05-29 17:42 GMT+02:00 Carl Ponder <cponder@xxxxxxxxxx>: > *On 05/29/2015 10:35 AM, Nick Papior Andersen wrote:* > > Netcdf fortran prefers the f03 module over the f90 module. They contain > the same interface, but f03 does so with iso_c_binding. > > As you are required to link against the same compiler (if you use the > module) you should not see any shortcomings of not having f90 modules > (everything you need is in the f03 modules). The only difference is how the > module is build and not what interfaces exist. > Please, if the devs note that I am saying something wrong, please correct > :) > > Is there a particular reason why you want f90 and not f03? > > I'm trying to build the NetCDF and other components (like OpenMPI & > HDF5) with as many of the capabilities enabled as I can. > I think this is the info that I wanted, I'll stick with the F03 unless I > see problems show up. > Thanks, > > Carl > > > ------------------------------ > This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and > may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies > of the original message. > ------------------------------ > -- Kind regards Nick
netcdfgroup archives: