Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: R Daneel Olivaw Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: I am getting a strange error when compiling abcpar.f in gfortran Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:12:48 +0100 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:12:48 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="2726463"; posting-host="XBJBjenliTep7OIZ0g9xdw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 Bytes: 4315 Lines: 66 Lynn McGuire wrote: > On 11/18/2024 5:50 AM, R Daneel Olivaw wrote: >> Lynn McGuire wrote: >>> On 11/12/2024 4:01 PM, baf wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2024 12:43 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If all of your general purpose subroutines and functions are in >>>>>>>> modules, you don't need interfaces for them (one of the >>>>>>>> advantages of modules). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have 6,000 subroutines in 5,000 files.  All I did was put >>>>>>> interfaces for about 2,600 of the subroutines into a single module. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lynn >>>>>>> >>>>>> A better alternative would be to put the subroutines in the module >>>>>> and USE the module. Then you don't need the interfaces (the >>>>>> compiler gets all of the interface information "automagically"). >>>>> >>>>> 850,000 lines of code in a single file ?  That would be a mess. >>>>> >>>>> Lynn >>>>> >>>> I wasn't suggesting a single module. Partition the subprograms into >>>> meaningful subgroups. Also, as was indicated, you can use submodules >>>> to avoid cascading compilation issues with a large number of modules. >>> >>> My father and two other engineer profs started developing the >>> software back in 1968 on a Univac 1108.  It had 32K words of data >>> space and 32K words of code space.  To build large software, we had >>> to manually partition the software ourselves so that it would fit >>> into those 32K words of code space.  It was a major pain when >>> somebody would update a subroutine and mess up the partition map. >>> >>> When I personally started working on the software in 1975, it was one >>> of my jobs to update the huge partition map on the wall outside my >>> bosses office.  I used the big computer sheets and taped them >>> together, about a hundred or so of the sheets. >>> >>> Never again. >>> >>> Lynn >>> >> >> Were you using @FOR (Fielddata) or @FTN (Ascii)? >> Things became much simpler when multiple Ibanks and addresses over >> 0200 000 became possible (for @ftn, @for was abandoned at some >> point).  I think @ftn also permitted multiple Dbanks but I never used >> that, the code generated was - by necessity - horrific. > > It has been 49 years ago, I do not remember.  Too many computers, too > many languages.  I have written software in around dozen languages and a > dozen platforms now.  Fortran, IBM 370 Assembly, Basic, Pascal, C, HTML, > Perl, C++, Smalltalk, bsh, Visual Basic, etc. > > We gave up on the Univac 1108 in 1981 ??? and the CDC 7600 in 1982.  I > started working at another company in 1982 when I finished my degree in > Mechanical Engineering at TAMU.  I went back to the engineering software > company in 1989. > > Lynn > My exposure to Univac started in 1979 on the 1106 and we were using Ascii Fortran - @ftn - there. @for was still around but was considered obsolete. It was a similar story with Cobol, we used Ascii Cobol - @acob - rather than the older Fieldata equivalents.