Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add quantize feature to F77 and F90 APIs, with tests and documentation #304

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Sep 14, 2021
Merged

Add quantize feature to F77 and F90 APIs, with tests and documentation #304

merged 16 commits into from
Sep 14, 2021

Conversation

edwardhartnett
Copy link
Contributor

This won't work until the quantize PR in netcdf-c is merged (Unidata/netcdf-c#2088).

Add the quantize feature to the Fortran APIs.

@edwardhartnett
Copy link
Contributor Author

OK, apparently no CI for netcdf-fortran yet. ;-)

I added one based on branch ejh_quantize_2 of my fork of netcdf-c. Once those changes are merged this CI can be changed to use master branch of the official netcdf-c repo, or discarded in favor of better CI...

@WardF WardF added this to the 4.6.0 milestone Sep 9, 2021
@WardF WardF merged commit 5e36b54 into Unidata:master Sep 14, 2021
@WardF
Copy link
Member

WardF commented Sep 14, 2021

Looks great, thanks @edwardhartnett!

@WardF
Copy link
Member

WardF commented Sep 14, 2021

Ok, I spoke a little soon, although I'm not going to revert the PR because that could end up making more of a mess. However, trying to link against netCDF 4.8.1 gives the following:

Undefined symbols for architecture arm64:
  "_nc_def_var_quantize", referenced from:
      _nf_def_var_quantize_ in nf_nc4.f90.o
  "_nc_inq_var_quantize", referenced from:
      _nf_inq_var_quantize_ in nf_nc4.f90.o
ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture arm64
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

So we will need to query for these functions at configure time and fencepost the code as appropriate.

@edwardhartnett
Copy link
Contributor Author

Problem is that many of the fortran codes don't actually have pre-processing. :-(

So perhaps undoing the merge is a good idea...

@WardF
Copy link
Member

WardF commented Sep 14, 2021

I'll take a look, thanks for weighing in. Reverting it out of the blue would possibly require jumping through hoops to re-apply it down the road. I'm going to revert it, get the testing in (I've got something working now, turns out the main issue was tabs in the yaml file XD), and see what we can do. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants