Hi,
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Joe Krahn wrote:
> Robert Duke wrote:
>> I am of the opinion that fighting over maximum name lengths is a waste of
>> time, and completely contrary to the flow in evolving good software
>> engineering practice. I suppose that if I were to see a fortran compiler
>> that patently fails on some >n name length, I would feel otherwise.
> That is partly why I posted the question: Are there any current compilers
> that hard limit of 31? Intel Fortran has a hard-limit of 63 characters, which
> is the F2003 standard, and probably good to enforce.
Staying on message<.:-| the question to ask is
Are there any compilers that a fair number of users have
that have a hard limit of 31?
I do not know, but 31 seems like a decent practical limit to me
(and Im the King of long descriptive names).
See p 262 of mcconnell2004; 8 to 20 characters is a good ballpark
with exceptions.
Here's what my first stab uncovered:
pgf90 6.0-8 32-bit target on x86 Linux
pgf90 -c -fast -O3 -Mfree -o charmm.o _charmm.f
PGF90-W-0016-Identifier, charmm_atom_type_numerical_label, truncated to 31 chars (_charmm.f: 214)
0 inform, 1 warnings, 0 severes, 0 fatal for charmm
pgf90 7.0-4 64-bit target on x86-64 Linux
pgf90 -c -fast -O3 -Mfree -o charmm.o _charmm.f
PGF90-W-0093-Type conversion of expression performed (_charmm.f: 1302)
PGF90-W-0093-Type conversion of expression performed (_charmm.f: 1304)
0 inform, 2 warnings, 0 severes, 0 fatal for charmm_calc_cmap_from_phi_psi
Scott
.book{mcconnell2004,
author = "{Steve McConnell}",
title = "Code Complete",
edition = "Second",
publisher = "Microsoft Press",
address = "Redmond, WA",
year = 2004 }
You guessed it; this is another classic and probably the only
encyclopedic guide to software development.
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Wed Apr 01 2009 - 01:17:05 PDT
