Re: [AMBER-Developers] Goals for AMBER code format/style?

From: David A. Case <>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:48:24 +0000

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009, Joe Krahn wrote:
> What do people think about replacing the _REAL_ cpp macro with a real
> KIND parameter? It allows you to write typed literals without needing to
> define a parameter.

Can you give an example? I guess I don't understand what you mean by
"use a typed literal without needing to define a parameter".

I've always viewed KIND attributes with distaste -- do we want something
other than double precision real variables? What is wrong with "1.0d0"
if that is what is desired? It can be dangerous to assume that
compilers will do the correct things with any non-standard KIND

> Is AMBER still working towards implicit-none in all source files?

Slowly, slowly.

> Is there any reason not to convert all of the common-block .h files into
> module files? It would be trivial to do a quick conversion by wrapping
> the existing header code, leaving the common blocks as they are, and
> working on removing them later.

Is there any reason *to* make such a conversion? I've thought that
unless the code were improved, just wrapping common blocks in modules
didn't really gain us much.

> At least for Gnu make, it is useful to use $(MAKE) instead of 'make',
> partly because it allows a parallel-make, giving much faster build times
> on multi-processor machines. For example, replace:
> cd dir; make xyz
> with:
> $(MAKE) -C dir xyz
> However, I don't know if $(MAKE) and the '-C' flag are standard for BSD
> make as well.

I thought Ross had already done this(?)


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Fri Mar 27 2009 - 01:16:04 PDT
Custom Search