[Scons-users] F90PPCOM vs F90COM not invoked correctly

[Luke Robison]

Bill,

Do you have any tips on how would I go about asking scons to compile a
given .F90 file using the F90PPCOM command rather than the F90COM?

Luke

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 2:23 PM Luke Robison <lukerobison at gmail.com> wrote:

> No, it would not allow those in the same directory.
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:52 PM Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Does msys allow a.F90 and a.f90 in same dir?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:57 AM Mats Wichmann <mats at wichmann.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/16/20 10:35 AM, Luke Robison wrote:
>>>
>>> > Mats,
>>> >
>>> > Interesting to note that the list is missing .F90 .F95 .F03 .F08.  I
>>> > think the scanner would only affect the dependency generation, right?
>>> > The Fortran Tool already defines it's own scanners, I'm not sure why
>>> any
>>> > fortran file extensions would be in that CScanner list.
>>>
>>> I figured it was because they're expected to be c-preprocessed, which is
>>> what you were talking about - that's what is documented in
>>> "SYSTEM-SPECIFIC BEHAVIOR" in the manpage.  Maybe the others you mention
>>> above are missing because they were not intended to have this effect -
>>> they're not documented as such - or maybe someone just forgot?
>>>
>>> elsewise, this part of the codebase is opqaue to me, I haven't looked at
>>> it directly.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scons-users mailing list
>>> Scons-users at scons.org
>>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scons-users mailing list
>> Scons-users at scons.org
>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20200424/7c0ffc71/attachment.html>