Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: in gfortran, is it faster compile times with *.mod files ?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:01:35 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <vgturv$16fp9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vgtt3v$169sh$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 23:01:35 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f1819f8854ba32d5f32a1a6bc0a426f";
	logging-data="1261353"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182twoHhEdFbeUwYu8fIdeu8LEzxFkOmuk="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OtoHtyZk5IvNhy0ue+Jum2WaBzI=
Bytes: 1675

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
> In gfortran, is it faster compile times with *.mod files ?  Or is it 
> just as fast compiling to include the module interface information in 
> each subroutine / function file ?

I haven't benchmarked this, but I think likely that there would only
be a small difference.  Usually, the front end only takes a small part of
compilation time (but there are pathological cases).

In general, modules are better because of automatic checking.
If you want to avoid recompilation cascades, submodules (where
you can separate the definition from the implementation) might
be worth looking into.

> Is there any chance that gfortran will automatically generate and use 
> module files in the future like IVF ?

Not sure what you're asking for.  Can you give an example?