Not! Praise for Gfortran
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
comp.lang.fortran only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Not! Praise for Gfortran         

Group: comp.lang.fortran · Group Profile
Author: Carlie J. Coats
Date: Sep 19, 2008 05:15

Al Greynolds wrote:
> Over the last few years I have developed a 30,000 line Fortran-95
> engineering application using simultaneously several compilers (XLF,
> LF95, G95, and IVF). During that time I toyed with Gfortran and put
> up with the 2 steps forward, 1 step back of each binary build.
> However, I'm now happy to report my "last" issue with it has been
> resolved and more importantly performance is almost identical to XLF
> and IVF in most cases. Congratulations to all involved with this
> project!
>
> Al Greynolds
> www.ruda.com

Over the last decade and a half I have developed an 80,000 line
environmental modeling utility library. All of it, including the
Makefile system, work cleanly on AIX/XLF (with choice of underscoring
convention), IRIX (5 and 6, "f77" or "f90"), Linux Alpha/DEC "fort",
Linux IA64 (Intel, gcc/g77, gcc/g95), Linux x86 (gcc/g77, gcc/g95,
Intel, PathScale, PGI (choice of underscoring), Sun StudioExpress,
Absoft (choice of underscoring), OSF1/fort, SunOS (4 or 5, f77 or f90),
Cray UNICOS f77 and f90, HP-UX (f77 and F90).

The Makefile system does *NOT* work with "gfortran" -- I've tried
several versions, the most recent being from the Mandriva RPM
gcc-gfortran-4.2.3-6mnb1. For a seemingly random set of the source
files, the make-log seems to indicate success, but the object file
is nowhere to be found, e.g.

...
cd /home/coats/Work/Linux2_x86_64gfort; gfortran -c -DIOAPICPL=1
-DAUTO_ARRAYS=1 -DF90=1 -DFLDMN=1 -DFSTR_L=int -DIOAPI_NO_STDOUT=1
-DAVOID_FLUSH=1 -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -m64 -Wall -Wsurprising
-openmp -I/home/coats/Work/ioapi /home/coats/Work/ioapi/bilin.f
Warning: Nonconforming tab character in column 1 of line 22
...
ar: bilin.o: No such file or directory
...

AND:

ls /home/coats/Work/Linux2_x86_64gfort/bilin*
/bin/ls: No match.

Claiming success when the actual result is failure is *CRAP*. IBM had
a similar issue with "xlf77" fifteen years ago, and they *fixed*it*.

FWIW -- Carlie Coats
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!