Re: amber-developers: [ Re: AMBER: Installation amber 9 on IBM SP4]

From: Scott Brozell <>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:17:05 -0700


On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, David A. Case wrote:

> Scott Brozell wrote:
> > On a technical note for future Ambers using .F90 instead of .f90
> > would also avoid this issue if ibm supports the popular conventions
> > on uppercase extensions indicating preprocessing.
> But this leaves us to the whims of Fortran compiler implementors, and "popular
> conventions" are likely to fail with the next whiz-bang update from PGI (or
> whoever). I'd rather have the Makefile do the work here.

In this case the Makefile fix is so easy and unobtrusive that there is
no debate (from me anyway). I mentioned this before; Columbus has
followed the .F90 path without issue (so far).

Received on Sun Aug 27 2006 - 06:07:32 PDT
Custom Search