Prev: an apology for Alois, et. al.
Next: converting a character string into a variable name
From: dpb on 10 Jun 2010 22:41
Luka Djigas wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:43:19 -0500, "Gary L. Scott"
> <garylscott(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
....

>> Decent help system for the product
>
> I believe Intel has done very well on this. Therefore my confusion on
> my part about this last two days and the aforementioned gentleman's
> problems with the documentation.
....

Based on CVF, I suspect they have as far as the general readership of
clf level of comfort w/ compilers in general and Fortran in particular.
Reading this thread, I'm personally convinced more is the OP's
impatience and attempting to hurry to excess combined with a set of
less-than-generic source files to start with than is due to actual
limitations or difficulties in the software/documentation itself...

--
From: rfengineer55 on 10 Jun 2010 22:58
On Jun 10, 5:11 pm, Gib Bogle <g.bo...(a)auckland.no.spam.ac.nz> wrote:
> dpb wrote:
> > At least VS 98 does have several "How Do I?" sections as well as a
> > sample projects and illustration of setting up new projects, etc.  Steve
> > L has pointed you at a tutorial already for current product.  In Intel's
> > defense, you have to understand that Visual Studio is _NOT_ an Intel
> > product; it is Microsoft's and all Intel has to do with it is the hooks
> > into it for their compiler.  
>
> That's a good point.  If Intel had developed their own IDE from scratch it might
> look and feel quite different from MS's multi-purpose software.  I'm not
> suggesting that this is what Intel should have done - the small Fortran
> user-base would hardly justify it, in fact I must say I sometime wonder how
> Fortran compiler-developers justify their existence to the bean-counters.

It's not quite as simple as that. Intel is selling Visual Studio 2008
with their compiler.
Doing so enhances the marketability of their product. Intel is
therefore responsible
for the entire package, because that's how they sell it. They are
responsible for efficient
and effictive support, and they are responsible for providing
effective documentation. If
the Microsoft documentation is "insufficient" or whatever, then they
are obligated to
take corrective action. I think the documentation for Visual Studio
2008 and therefore
the Intel Fortran compiler, blows.

Jeff
RF ENGINEER55
From: Steve Lionel on 11 Jun 2010 09:34
On 6/10/2010 10:26 PM, Luka Djigas wrote:
> Here lies maybe the one thing that I do not understand / having
> trouble configuring - how to obtain VS (2008 in my case) to highlight
> files with a different extension than the default for fortran code (in
> this example, I was having trouble with .F95; although I saw someone
> asking this exact question on Intel's forums their approach did not
> work for me. But anyways, 'tis a trifle.)

Tools > Options > Intel Visual Fortran > General. Click on the ...
button to the right of Fortran File Extensions > Free Form > Source.
Add .f95 on a new line, click OK, restart Visual Studio.

There was a bug earlier where this did not work fully, but it should
now. I do discourage use of .f95, .f03, .f08, etc., as I consider this
an inappropriate overloading of what should be a source form selector
only, but if that's what you want, go for it.

--
Steve Lionel
Developer Products Division
Intel Corporation
Nashua, NH

For email address, replace "invalid" with "com"

User communities for Intel Software Development Products
http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/
Intel Software Development Products Support
http://software.intel.com/sites/support/
My Fortran blog
http://www.intel.com/software/drfortran
From: Luka Djigas on 11 Jun 2010 10:18
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:34:30 -0400, Steve Lionel
<steve.lionel(a)intel.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/10/2010 10:26 PM, Luka Djigas wrote:
>> Here lies maybe the one thing that I do not understand / having
>> trouble configuring - how to obtain VS (2008 in my case) to highlight
>> files with a different extension than the default for fortran code (in
>> this example, I was having trouble with .F95; although I saw someone
>> asking this exact question on Intel's forums their approach did not
>> work for me. But anyways, 'tis a trifle.)
>
>Tools > Options > Intel Visual Fortran > General. Click on the ...
>button to the right of Fortran File Extensions > Free Form > Source.
>Add .f95 on a new line, click OK, restart Visual Studio.

Mr. Lionel, thank you for answering.

I know you disprove of handling support regarding Intel's Fortran in
here, that's why I did not wish to make a fuss of it, but merely
mentioned it as a side issue, a detail, no more.

But, yes. Indeed it now does work - for some reason I did not even
bother to check whether the issue has been handled when our system
engineers upgraded the product (to 11.1.051, I believe) some time ago.

Still, there is something I forgot to mention in my rush while writing
the above. While indeed the editor recognizes fortran syntax when the
file is opened as part of a project (i.e. it is inside of a project),
it does not do so when it is opened standalone-ish, i.e.
File/Open/some.f95 file right after starting VS. In contrast, standard
(default) extensions are recognized correctly, and highlighted equally
well.

Do you know perhaps if that has been handled as well, and could you
maybe referr me to the place in Intel's forums, where it has been
discussed, if it was, for upon my quick search I was unable to find
it?


>
>There was a bug earlier where this did not work fully, but it should
>now. I do discourage use of .f95, .f03, .f08, etc., as I consider this
>an inappropriate overloading of what should be a source form selector
>only, but if that's what you want, go for it.

No, no. You are completely right. If I understand correctly, Fortran
compiler recognizes fixed and free form, and that is the only
difference. These extensions came upon one time when people started
identifying f77 as fixed form, and f90 as free form, not realizing
that they can write one or the other, in whatever form they want.
I believe that from that misunderstanding spread all the other
extensions as well.

Is my reasoning correct ?

-- Luka
From: Steve Lionel on 11 Jun 2010 14:53
On 6/11/2010 10:18 AM, Luka Djigas wrote:
> Still, there is something I forgot to mention in my rush while writing
> the above. While indeed the editor recognizes fortran syntax when the
> file is opened as part of a project (i.e. it is inside of a project),
> it does not do so when it is opened standalone-ish, i.e.
> File/Open/some.f95 file right after starting VS. In contrast, standard
> (default) extensions are recognized correctly, and highlighted equally
> well.
>
> Do you know perhaps if that has been handled as well, and could you
> maybe referr me to the place in Intel's forums, where it has been
> discussed, if it was, for upon my quick search I was unable to find
> it?

I don't recall this coming up before. I will ask the developers about
this. Such files do get "recognized" if you add them to a Fortran
project. If you would like to discuss it further, please post in the forum.

> If I understand correctly, Fortran
> compiler recognizes fixed and free form, and that is the only
> difference. These extensions came upon one time when people started
> identifying f77 as fixed form, and f90 as free form, not realizing
> that they can write one or the other, in whatever form they want.
> I believe that from that misunderstanding spread all the other
> extensions as well.

That's correct. We've discussed this matter in c.l.f before. I side
with those who believe that it would have been better to choose a file
type for free-form source that did not seem to be tied to a particular
revision of the language, but that's what the industry settled on. Some
people then chose to use the file type to also indicate which revision
their code was written for.

I can see some value in this, but think it rapidly gets out of control
as the language advances - if you add CLASS to your Fortran 95 code does
that mean you have to rename it .f03, and change your build scripts,
etc.? Do you rigorously keep the file type in synch with the earliest
standard each source file is written for? What if you use extensions?
It seems a mess to me.

--
Steve Lionel
Developer Products Division
Intel Corporation
Nashua, NH

For email address, replace "invalid" with "com"

User communities for Intel Software Development Products
http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/
Intel Software Development Products Support
http://software.intel.com/sites/support/
My Fortran blog
http://www.intel.com/software/drfortran
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: an apology for Alois, et. al.
Next: converting a character string into a variable name