-assume noold_ldout_format for GNU

[Dominique d'Humières]

As a general comment, the quality of the help you’ll get is directly related to the quality of the information you provide!-(

> Le 31 mai 2018 à 09:56, nachiket k <nachiket316@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I removed all the flags
> 
> I recompiled g2
> 
> There is this line in the code
> integer(4) :: ire00,allones
> 
> allones=Z'FFFFFFFF'
> 
> So here overflow error occurs integer(16) to integer(4)
> 
> I tried allones=Z'FF'
> and 
> integer(16) :: allones
> allones=Z’FFFFFFFF'

You may want to look at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/u6V7QBvvF6o.
> 
> Doing any of these compiles the code
> -Wall gives following warning 
> 
> In pngpack.f,jpcpack.f
> real(8) to real(4)
> rmin4 = rmin
> this is because of their declaration as
> real(4) :: rmin4
> real(8) :: rmin
> 
> and
> 
> intmath.f:212.17:
> 
>          ilog2_1=ilog2_1+4
>                  1
> Warning: Possible change of value in conversion from INTEGER(4) to INTEGER(1) at (1)
> 
> As all of these are warning compilation is completed 

I don’t have the files.

> 
> but in copygb2 I still face issue
> 
> copygb2.f:1072.35:
> 
>           CALL INTGRIB2(0,IP,IPOPT,d,nopt,opt,KGDSB,
>                                    1
> Warning: Type mismatch in argument 'ngdt1' at (1); passed REAL(4) to INTEGER(4)

My guess is that ‘d’ is not explicitly typed as an integer. I don’t have the files generating the modules!-(

You may try to compile the file with -fimplicit-none and look at the errors you get.

> copygb2.f:776.20:
> 
>           CALL CPGB1(LG1,LX1,M1,
>                     1
> Error: Dummy argument 'kgdti' of procedure 'cpgb1' at (1) has an attribute that requires an explicit interface for this procedure
> make: *** [copygb2.o] Error 1
> 
> Is a lot of source code change needed here ? of is there any flag that can take care of this issue ?

An interface is required with some post F90 constructs such as 

INTEGER,POINTER :: TMPPTR(:)

and friends.

Writing the interface might be challenging. An alternative is to move the subroutine after a 

CONTAINS

in the "root" caller.

Dominique