It might just be a typographicall slip, but I thought I'd clarify just
> Thanks for the suggestion. Yeah...right now the creation of interface
> block from Fortran is the only viable option to avoid portability
> Ron Shepard wrote:
> > In article <1179395968.087284.110
> > Arun Prasath <abaru
> > > I have a variable arg function in C which i am calling from Fortran.
> > If you are concerned with portability, then I would recommend
> > writing an interface function in C that takes a fixed number of
> > arguments and that then calls the other variable argument C
> > function. You can then call this interface function from fortran
> > without so much concern about portability.
Ron said nothing about an interface block. An interface block is a
specific technical thing in Fortran, and it isn't what Ron was talking
about. He mentioned an interface function, also sometimes called a
wrapper function; neither of those are specific technical terms in
Fortran, but just a descriptive ones.
Interface blocks are also useful when doing C interop. I tend to write
interface blocks for the C functions that I use. With the f2003 C
interop stuff, an interface body is needed to tell the compiler that the
function is a C one. But interface blocks do nothing to address the
issue at hand - C varargs.
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain