Can someone know the time for a oo implemented F2003 complier release under the window platform?
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: Can someone know the time for a oo implemented F2003 complier release under the window platform?
Next: generic interface real function vs real
From: Gerry Ford on 16 Apr 2008 18:02 "GaryScott" <garylscott(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:d1af1416-9ffd-4073-8103-b45c08a88c22(a)t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... On Apr 16, 10:21 am, lleshu...(a)gmail.com wrote: > It can be see it in this year? Now taking wagers...vote for the compiler vendor (one of their products on any platform) that will first achieve 100% compliance (realize that some of these may not be in the race or for some operating systems): Absoft Lahey/Fujitsu Intel Silverfrost/Salford HP IBM NAG PGI SUN Pathscale G95 GFortran Other I should set up a voting web site... --->Can we come up with code snippets that would test incrementally-closer compliance? I don't know what oo looks like in fortran. Does anyone have any experience with it in fortran? I stumbled onto the topic some years back when I wanted to have C functions that do the same thing with different types. As for my money, I'll bet against silverfrost and on sun. Of course, sun isn't windows. I'm hoping that it can co-exist with windows, however. And as long as we're betting, I'll take the Celtics over the Lakers. -- "A belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness." ~~ Joseph Conrad (1857-1924), novelist
From: FX on 16 Apr 2008 18:14 > Of course, sun isn't windows. Sun compilers run on linux, you know, you don't need to install Solaris (which is what I think you're referring to) (although I had a year ago a nice WinXP / DOS / Linux / Solaris / NetBSD system that earned me quite a few points in most geek tests :) -- FX
From: Richard Maine on 16 Apr 2008 18:52 FX <coudert(a)alussinan.org> wrote: > (although I had a year ago a > nice WinXP / DOS / Linux / Solaris / NetBSD system that earned me quite a > few points in most geek tests :) Our Apple rep showed us something comparable one time a few years ago. He was running OS X (of course), with several of those other options running under Parallels. Of course, it had WinXP. I think I recall Solaris, which I thought was pretty nifty for an Apple rep, and some Linux distro. (Yes, NASA got Apple reps that could talk geek in addition to the usual market-speak). -- Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: angelv on 17 Apr 2008 09:24
Hi, Richard Maine wrote: > Well, from the tables of implmented features I have seen, it looks like > IBM has been awful close for a while. I seem to recall that > parameterized derived types were the only major feature listed as > missing. I haven't had direct experience with the IBM compilers for > quite a few years now (last one I tried was the beta of XLF for OS X), > so I'm basing this just on the posted tables rather than on any kind of > actual first-hand (or even second-hand) tests. And, of course, the > operating system coverage is... limitted. Do you know of any more or less up-to-date table describing the implemented features of each compiler? For an application I'm writting, I would very much like to use procedure pointers, but the (little) search I've done in this group and in the PGI reference manual didn't show up anything conclusive (there was an interesting discussion about this a couple of years ago in this newsgroup, but I wonder if things have chanced for the better since then). Thanks, Ángel de Vicente |