freeform is not a superset of fixed form. The following is another
example of fixed form that won't compile as free-form.
Call foo(bar,............................................, my
comment here after the 72char fixed limit
$ otherparms,.............)
And then fortran compilers has options to change the fixed from from
72 to 100 or 132? We don't support that [ so no petsc codes use that
stuff]
There is a way to write code thats both fixed-form and freeform
compliant. But it means all codes need fixes support this.. [we've
done that for petsc fortran code that end in .h or .F suffix. .F90
suffix sourcefiles in PETSc are free-form only.
Satish
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Blaise A Bourdin wrote:
> Damn it! Considering that fixed form was declared obsolete 10 years ago, and
> if this is the only incompatibility, is it too much to ask that fortran
> people replace a "C" in first col with a "!" (which is also compatible with
> fixed form)?
>
> Blaise
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Blaise A Bourdin <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> I haven’t use fixed-form in a long time, but isn’t free-form a
> >> superset of fixed-form? Are there situation where a fixed form code
> >> cannot be compiled as free form source code?
> >
> > $ cat foo.f
> > program foo
> > c a silly comment
> > end program
> > $ gfortran foo.f
> > $ gfortran -ffree-form foo.f
> > foo.f:2:
> >
> > c a silly comment
> > 1
> > Error: Unclassifiable statement at (1)
>
>
