> So if I require Fortran 2003 for our fortran codes then this whole > ?fortran name-mangling? thing becomes a moot point, i.e. I do not have to > actually worry about it at all for our project. Just have to keep the C > header consistent with the FORTRAN functions, but that part is on our devs. >
Exactly, that is the whole point of the standardized `ISO_C_BINDING` module and C interop being added to the Fortran 2003 standard. No more ugly guess work, hackery, etc. AFAIK, there is pretty good support for this among compiler vendors, so long as you have a recent release. I know for sure GCC's gfortran and Intel's ifort support this very well. I'm pretty sure PGI, Cray and IBM support it too. I have never used NAG, so I withhold comment there, but I'd be surprised if they had yet to add this to their compiler. The demand for C interop is really high, and almost all of these companies make companion C compilers, so, in my experience, they have been relatively quick to implement these features, while some other Fortran 2003 and later features have languished. (I'm looking at you, parameterized derived types...) Happy hacking! P.S. Unless you want to sound like an old geezer, it's spelled Fortran these days, not FORTRAN. ;-)
-- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake
