[f2py-users] COMMON block wrapping

Thilo Ernst te@first.gmd.de
Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:20:48 +0200

Pearu Peterson wrote:

> > Do you see any technical reasons against considering a similar mechanism (e.g.
> > in the form COMMON.varname) for a future version of f2py?
> No, I don't see any technical reasons and I agree that a better
> interface to COMMON blocks is needed. The form might be the following
> <modulename>.<COMMON block name>.<variable name>

Thanks for your supporting my thoughts.

> > Perhaps the  feature could find other uses in the context of F90/F95
> > support, too.
> Unfortunately wrapping F90 module data (and routines) is more tricky. But
> the good news is that I know how to do that (earlier I didn't:).
> The bad news is that right now I am too busy with my other projects (which
> have deadlines) and I really can't tell you when I can do all the
> implementation.

Sure, we aren't paying customers after all :-). For the meantime, could you
perhaps share the very basics of your recently-gained F90 wrapping
knowledge on  this mailling list? I'll have to wrap one or two medium-sized
F90 codes real soon now (i.e., with a deadline too), and even if there is no
tool support yet, some hints about what can likely be made to work and
what is hopeless would be very helpful. Perhaps I could even contribute
to the f2py implementation based on my (hopefully) coming experience
with doing-it-manually later on.

First question here: How compiler-dependent do you think this entire
topic (wrapping F90 data/routines) is?
(I'm using NAG f95 which can be used in Fortran-to-C-to-objectcode
mode which seems a big advantage as I can inspect the C representation
of everything I want to wrap. But I don't know whether what I see there
generalizes well to other compilers.)

Anybody else on this list having successfully wrapped F90 programs?

Best regards,