This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
Verena, >Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:04:08 +0200 >From: Verena Cals <address@hidden> >Organization: Stratosphäre / Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH >To: Steve Emmerson <address@hidden> >Subject: Re: 20020514: netcdf on UNICOS: non-support of primitive F90 types >Keywords: 200204250907.g3P97sa28336 The above message contained the following: > I have verified the assertions, but it does not apply anything. The > first, second and fourth assertion is correct. > > 3. But in netcdf-3.5.0/src/f90/netcdf_overloads.f90 there are only the > following subroutines for handling 1-D vectors: 'nf90_put_var_1D_text' > and 'nf90_put_var_1D_EightByteReal'. There is no > 'nf90_put_var_1D_EightByteInt'. > > 5. 'nf90_put_var_1D_EightByteInt' is NOT defined in > netcdf-3.5.0/src/f90/netcdf_expanded.f90 > > 6.Because 'nf90_put_var_1D_EightByteInt' does not exist, it is not able > to handle 1-D integer vectors of type-kind 'EightByteInt' > > I have also verified the assertions above in netcdf-3.5.1-beta3 (without > ..._OneByteInt, ..._TwoByteInt, ..._FourByteInt and > ..._FourByteReal in src/f90/netcdf_overloads.f90). There everything is > correct, but executing configure seems to be not complete. > > Should I integrate the missing assertions (3., 5. and 6.) in > netcdf-3.5.0? I was working with a more advanced version of the netCDF package -- apparently, one that already supports 8-byte integers in the Fortran-90 interface. We're not sure if this capability will make it into the next release, however, because we're not sure that ALL Fortran-90 implementations support 8-byte integers. Try making the modifications to the files netcdf_overloads.f90 and netcdf_expanded.f90 and see if that works on your system. If it does, then that is a good argument for putting those changes in the next release. Regards, Steve Emmerson <http://www.unidata.ucar.edu>