W
Wade Ward
My usual server took a dump, and I'm posting through the goople
portal. It's new and slick. Maybe this will improve the quality of
google posters.
message body follows:
us are
looking backwards at a good chunk of the steep learning-curve that is
standard linking, yet none of us knows it all; it's a problem that
penetrates deeply into the nature of finite-state automata. It's so
complicated in C that it requires someone like Jabba the Hut to
explain.
There's a lot of nuance in #defining and #undefining, and I do not
dispute
Keith Thompson's encyclopedic command of the issue. If I did dispute,
he'd
hand me my ass in any technical discussion.
That said, the purple dinosaur will not tolerate talk of how to link
to c++,
windows, or anything remotely more useful than linux, C's ugly red-
headed
stepchild. You can claim that I'm confused about system-specific
stuff and
portability, but I would remind that ISO C, for all its portability,
goes
*nowhere.*
Then you have fortran and perl, which define themselves off of c. I
think
that the reason that Richard Maine--c.l.f.'s answer to Keith--allows
talk of
more varieties in linking traces itself directly to the standard, but
I
don't know. I do know that c-fortran linking must be a calculus else
interop is a pipe dream. Anyways....
portal. It's new and slick. Maybe this will improve the quality of
google posters.
message body follows:
What does the standard say about linking in general? I think most ofCraig Dedo said:Robert Corbett gave a fairly complete answer. See my remarks below for
more detail.
The standard does not cover the operations of the linker. This is
explicitly excluded by section 1.4 of both the Fortran 95 and Fortran 2003
standards.
Your only options are either:
(1) ignore the warning or error messages from the linker, or
(2) write a dummy subroutine that does nothing.
Of the two options, I very much prefer option (2).
us are
looking backwards at a good chunk of the steep learning-curve that is
standard linking, yet none of us knows it all; it's a problem that
penetrates deeply into the nature of finite-state automata. It's so
complicated in C that it requires someone like Jabba the Hut to
explain.
There's a lot of nuance in #defining and #undefining, and I do not
dispute
Keith Thompson's encyclopedic command of the issue. If I did dispute,
he'd
hand me my ass in any technical discussion.
That said, the purple dinosaur will not tolerate talk of how to link
to c++,
windows, or anything remotely more useful than linux, C's ugly red-
headed
stepchild. You can claim that I'm confused about system-specific
stuff and
portability, but I would remind that ISO C, for all its portability,
goes
*nowhere.*
Then you have fortran and perl, which define themselves off of c. I
think
that the reason that Richard Maine--c.l.f.'s answer to Keith--allows
talk of
more varieties in linking traces itself directly to the standard, but
I
don't know. I do know that c-fortran linking must be a calculus else
interop is a pipe dream. Anyways....