[SOLVED] A compile time error in GFortran I don't understand
Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Unless the forward and reverse algorithms are corrupted in the same way. You should do an independent verification using another set of tools. Most languages have an FFT library of some kind, you could even write a quick C wrapper for fftw3, I've used it before and it's pretty straight forward. You could probably even use GDL or Octave (free "approximations" of IDL and Matlab respectively), or python, etc.
The only reason I'm harping on this so much is because I'm about 99% sure that your solution for the compilation problem will break the code. Not programatically, but mathematically. It seems to me that the original developer was probably a C programmer who was branching out into Fortran, and wrote those function calls like he would have in C, which means passing the memory location of the index in the array at which you want to start, and letting the function increment from there. Fortran doesn't work that way, at least not naturally. He probably kluged together some syntax that let his specific compiler behave as he wanted, but it was not ANSI, and of course breaks as soon as the compiler changes. The focus here isn't to get your compiler to build the code without complaint, it's to get your compiler to build the code in the way that the original developer intended, and simply removing the index offset in the function calls is almost certainly not the right answer.
Last edited by suicidaleggroll; 12-11-2014 at 09:22 PM.
Thank you for your intricate analysis. I am alert to all options, including to what you are saying. It is a huge task for me to wade through so much code with variants of FFT methods. Might take time but I will crack it. My task is even more complicated by the fact that I need to do 2-D transform and the other dimension is not FFT, although the variables are separatable. I truly value your contributions. Thanks, - A.