[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 20050107: Notes on building netcdf-3.6 on nec SX6 (fwd)

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 Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated.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.

  • Subject: Re: 20050107: Notes on building netcdf-3.6 on nec SX6 (fwd)
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:31:22 -0700
------- Forwarded Message

Date:    07 Jan 2005 12:22:50 -0700
From:    Ed Hartnett <address@hidden>
To:      Russ Rew <address@hidden>, address@hidden
Subject: Re: 20050107: Notes on building netcdf-3.6 on nec SX6 (fwd)

> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Notes on building netcdf-3.6 on nec SX6
> From: Jacob Weismann Poulsen <address@hidden>
> 
> Hi,

Howdy Jacob!

> 
> I had to help a friend building netcdf on our nec sx6 system the other
> day and I discovered a couple of things:
> 
> 1) As to the source code I noticed that you in the f90 subdirectory 
> define and apply a 'OneByteInt = selected_int_kind(2)' and 
> 'TwoByteInt = selected_int_kind(4)'. On the sx6 system one does not
> distinguish between 'selected_int_kind(2)' and 'selected_int_kind(4)'
> and this obviously leads to problems that one can easily overcome by
> removing all the duplicate definitions. However, it would be nice if
> one didn't have to patch the source in order to build it.

I'm not (yet) an expert on the F90 interface. Can you send us a patch?
If so, we'll make it available for our users, and also take a look at
this issue.

> 
> 2) As to the build environment I noticed that your configure setup
> doesn't support cross-compilation. You could easily change that simply
> by checking the variable 'cross_compiling' after your call to AC_PROG_CC
> and then avoid the AC_TRY_RUN, UD_CHECK_FTRUNCATE and all the AC_CHECK_SIZEOF
> calls in this case. Just of curiosity, why have you chosen to use autoconf
> and not automake for portable handling of Makefiles ???

It is not considered that cross-compiling is important for netCDF
users. That is, no one has ever asked for it, or expressed interest in
it. Would you cross-compile netCDF if it were possible to do so? I
would be very interested to hear of practical uses of cross-compiling
netCDF.

I would like to support cross-compilation, just for fun, but
priorities lie elsewhere for the near future.

Release 3.6.0 doesn't use automake because netCDF started using
autoconf before automake caught on. However, in netCDF-4, (the next
major release), netCDF will also use automake.

> I hope that feedback is useful to you,
> 

Yes, thanks!

Ed Hartnett
Unidata

------- End of Forwarded Message