Fortran Vs C, C++, C#
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: practice online trading. platinum online trading. online trading worldwide. online trading which is best
Next: variant data type
From: FX on 3 Jul 2010 14:16 > I might also note that I find it a pretty narrow viewpoint to assume, s > one poster seems to do, that Fortran code is going to be targetting > x86. I completely agree. Even without talking of assembler, I write and compile Fortran code at least on x86, powerpc, sparc, ia64 and arm processors. Oh, and NEC SX-8 ;-) though gfortran/gcc doesn't target it -- FX
From: Harald Anlauf on 3 Jul 2010 15:10 On Jul 3, 8:16 pm, "FX" <coud...(a)alussinan.org> wrote: > > I might also note that I find it a pretty narrow viewpoint to assume, s > > one poster seems to do, that Fortran code is going to be targetting > > x86. > > I completely agree. Even without talking of assembler, I write and > compile Fortran code at least on x86, powerpc, sparc, ia64 and arm > processors. > > Oh, and NEC SX-8 ;-) > though gfortran/gcc doesn't target it Yeah, that's really bad, as there's no good Fortran Compiler for the SX series. I mean, no Compiler supporting Fortran 2003 and later. NEC unfortunately refuses to modernize their compiler. I still do hope that they will change their mind. (Concerning raw performance, these machines are quite interesting). Harald
From: FX on 3 Jul 2010 16:17 > Yeah, that's really bad, as there's no good Fortran Compiler for the SX > series. I mean, no Compiler supporting Fortran 2003 and later. You can always look at sx-gcc (http://code.google.com/p/sx-gcc/). > Concerning raw performance, these machines are quite interesting. Yes, but they require code a bit of code tuning to get the best of the vector pipeline. -- FX
From: Harald Anlauf on 3 Jul 2010 17:56 On Jul 3, 10:17 pm, "FX" <coud...(a)alussinan.org> wrote: > > Yeah, that's really bad, as there's no good Fortran Compiler for the SX > > series. I mean, no Compiler supporting Fortran 2003 and later. > > You can always look at sx-gcc (http://code.google.com/p/sx-gcc/). Nice! ;-) Although gcc-4.2 did not provide much of Fortran 2003. > > Concerning raw performance, these machines are quite interesting. > > Yes, but they require code a bit of code tuning to get the best of the > vector pipeline. Right. But the detailed performance diagnostics you get with ftrace is very useful to get you there. I still have to find anything close on a Linux system. Harald
From: e p chandler on 3 Jul 2010 23:27
"Thomas Koenig" <tkoenig(a)netcologne.de> wrote in message news:i0nnhn$fb0$2(a)newsreader5.netcologne.de... > On 2010-07-01, glen herrmannsfeldt <gah(a)ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> I have written assembler for many machines and x86 is my least >> favorite. > > Ever written assembler for 6502? ;-) Yes, quite a lot of it. That chip had two major advantages. The first was zero page addressing. The second was that each memory access took 1 cycle. So a 1 MHz 6502 is about as fast as a 4 MHz Z80. [Yes I can still assemble small programs in hex by hand mostly from memory.] As for Fortran vs other languages: 1. I know Fortran but only a bit of C. 2. Arrays. 3. Look at some of the problem programs posted in this newsgroup. Some of the code posted looks like a naive attempt to translate mathematical formulas into a programming language. But that's exactly what the language was designed for (minus the naivete). [See my discussion of a program by Eric and how it could have been improved, for example.] [On soapbox] So it bothers me when I read postings from graduates in science or engineering who have never used Fortran at all. Instead they may have used something like MATLAB. What are they missing? 1. The vast literature of existing programs written in Fortran. This also includes the algorithms expressed in Fortran. 2. A better understanding of the limitations of numeric computation, including floating point numbers, etc. 3. The ability to express themselves in a common language that is well understood. 4. The problems with a black box approach to problems. [When was the last time you saw Newton's method fall completely on its head? How about solving problems with the auto-solver of a modern calculator?] [Off soapbox] Elliot |