FTN95 configuration dialog

What makes FTN95 bring up the configuration dialog when given a command line such as:

ftn95 /c test.for

And as the only way out of that dialog is Save and the exit box, then it does not do the compilation?

8.10pe (and others)

Eddie

Eddie,

This function of /c option came up in a recent post, as it now initiates the /cfg option. ( /config for local .cfg file ) I am not sure if '/c' has always been the abbreviation for /cfg or if a recent change to FTN95. I think /cfg may be new ?

This becomes a problem for users not familiar with FTN95, as /c is a necessary option for gFortran and ifort when producing .obj files.

Perhaps FTN95 could be changed so that /c is not an abbreviation for /cfg or /config. ( /config_local might be better for local or provided in File options) It may be better if /c could possibly be reported as an invalid option for FTN95 or made to act as with most other compilers, ie select that .obj file is produced and /lgo or /link are not compatible options.

The short answer is that you have selected incompatible options so user error !

John

update: /c (/cfg) was introduced with Ver 8.00. Prior to this /c implied /cfpp which may have caused less conflict.

Could I suggest that options /c and /32 be considered as new options to be used to help with documenting the compile command, which would be used by FTN95 to confirm the compatibility of compile options being selected.

John is right. Compiler command line options can be abbreviated and the result is based on lexicographic order. So the effect of /c has changed with the introduction of /cfg.

For gFortran, use -c to generate code. For FTN95, use /no_code to avoid generating code.

I guess that (in FTN95) /c could be added as an alternative to /-no_code but it might cause confusion particularly when used in a configuration file.

Thanks both,

I've been using /c for well over a quarter century to just compile and produce an .obj - perhaps it never did anything at all!

Eddie

Eddie,

For 25 years you have you have been using FTN95 incorrectly and look what you have produced. Imagine what would have happened if you used it correctly !!

It just goes to show how long it takes to identify some coding errors.

John

John,

For an answer like that (true though it may be) I refer you to Somerset Maugham's short story: 'The Verger' which if you can't find a copy of SM's short stories in book form it is here: http://www.sinden.org/verger.html You can also find Maugham reading it on YouTube.

I must have been asking for /CHECK and not /CR or /CONFIG in FTN77 and onwards for it not to have shown up, and it is the introduction of /CFG that caused the issue, and of course, downloading a v8 compiler where it is implemented. So not the whole quarter century!

Eddie

And if I was inadvertently specifying /CHECK, no surprise that /OPTIMISE never worked for me. But then my codes execute at high speed anyway - it's the way I write them!

E

(Edited to remove a full stop from the end of the link).

'Good God, man, what would you be now if you had known what /c means?'

Should I live for another ten years, I should expect then to hear about ten thriving Eddie's Corner-s, each of them well stocked with tobacco, newspapers and FTN95 manuals.

Thanks, Eddie, for the link! After reading The Verger, I found myself asking, 'How would I have found it without the link? Would Google be able to suggest that story, having been provided not the name but only the circumstances?'