From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16815 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2010 05:29:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 16598 invoked by uid 48); 2 Apr 2010 05:29:11 -0000 Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 05:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100402052911.16597.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/42607] add information about how to compile a module In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #4 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-04-02 05:29 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > I think .mod files are not obvious; the standard does not say anything about > them, though (almost?) all compilers use them. On the other hand, few people > seem to have problems with .mod files. the current Cray compiler (from cce) does not have modules, the mod info ends up in the .o files. one thing that could be documented about the gfortran mod files is that they are left untouched if possible. We use that in our makefile to avoid recompilation cascades. This is actually an important feature for developers, since it makes gfortran much faster for development than many of the other compilers. Furthermore, the fact that left-over mod files from older/newer gfortran compilers leads to user-visible error messages could also be worth documenting (At least state that even though .o, .a and .so files might be 'ABI-compatible' over several versions of the compiler, .mod files a specific to even a minor version of the compiler). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42607