From: rfengineer55 on 10 Jun 2010 10:41
Yes, I read the post from the gentleman from intel. But apparently you
<< there is a / vms option which
changes some defaults to be even more compatible with the VMS
- adding support for octal constants using " syntax, for example." >>
Do you see anywhere in his post where he tells me how exactly to do
that? I don't, and that's why I reposted here.
I will check the Forum when I get done here. I don't have the time to
continually park at the Intel forum website if I hpoe to get any work
done, sleep, or have any kind of a normal life. I think it's B*** S***
that apparently the only way I can get help getting software up and
running that I bought and paid dearly for, is by forum or email. This
will be the last software product I buy from Intel because of the, in
my opinion, poor customer support. I'm sure they have, what they
believe are good reasons for doing business this way, and I don't
respect those reasons and therefore am not interested in discussing
their reasoning. I don't have the time for this.
Compile by subroutines would be nice, but I can't do that. The
compiler complains that there is no program Main. I can "compile up
to this point to shake out syntax problems and such, put what's the
point unless I can catch all errors? Those can be caught if the sub is
contained in the entire source listing.
There was a concern by another respondent who pointed out quite
accurately about amkeys.inc missing. quite true, but I do have that
in my FCC Fortran library so it can be added.
There are also someDEC VMS library functions that have been comented
out. I will either downsize the program to not utilize those features,
or write my own function to replace those library functions. There may
be an extension in the more modern versions of Fortran that do the
same thing. BTW, I have looked in the Inet for VMS freeware library
functions and did not find any. I may have been serching on the wrong
keywords; I do that sometimes :-(
The source code to take off running once we get these two errors fixed
that I posted here. I had no idea before I posted here, where those
errors were even coming from. Thanks to the respondants here, I have
some troubleshooting strategy.
Finally, I am not looking for a "fix my broken code" button on my
compiler. What I am looking for are some resources that would allow me
to spot specific incompatibilities between VAX VMS Fortran and Fortran
77; Fortran 77 because I have compilers for that.
It is not worth my time to upgrade several thousand lines of code to
Fortran 2003 because I am not trying to crate a sellable product; I
only want runnable executable files that will be used for a research
project about the FCC AM Broadcast Channel Allocation Rules. The math
there is pretty easy, but to analyze one radio station, requires
hundreds of calculations. That's a good job for my computer. So with
this goal in mind, I want to keep my eye on the ball so to speak, and
not get off track. So if I seem a little rigid about not wanting to do
certain things, it's because I want to do only what's required for my
actual project. It may ultimately come down to my doing the
calculations by hand, once I find out all the tetium required to get
this code up and running.
So that's a little about myself and what I'm doing. I hope this
information will be helpful.
Thanks again for your helpful ideas and suggestions. I'll try your
findings on AMdist.for this evening and see what happens. There is a
very good chance that those suggestions will fix the problems because
the errors are happening on initialization.
From: Alois Steindl on 10 Jun 2010 10:51
it seems you have to rethink your tone:
you started out by stating some quite "uninformed" questions, the
experts in this group tried to help you quite a lot, but now you
whine that you are unable to understand the hints.
Lets put it that way:
It seems you are unable to use the proper software products and read the
appropriate manuals. You have started to do some work, which you are not
able to perform. Now you shout at the makers of the software tools,
which you are not able to use properly and at the persons, who try to
This behaviour is in clear contrast to your nickname.
Alois Steindl, Tel.: +43 (1) 58801 / 32558
Inst. for Mechanics and Mechatronics Fax.: +43 (1) 58801 / 32598
Vienna University of Technology, A-1040 Wiedner Hauptstr. 8-10
From: mecej4 on 10 Jun 2010 11:55
On 6/10/2010 9:41 AM, in an aimless diatribe, rfengineer55 wrote:
> Yes, I read the post from the gentleman from intel. But apparently you
> didn't -
> << there is a / vms option which
> changes some defaults to be even more compatible with the VMS
> - adding support for octal constants using " syntax, for example.">>
> Do you see anywhere in his post where he tells me how exactly to do
> that? I don't, and that's why I reposted here.
With an empty 'amkeys.inc', I obtained the following output from Intel
s:\fcc>ifort /vms fcc.for
Intel(R) Visual Fortran Compiler Professional for applications
running on IA-32, Version 11.1 Build 2010041
4 Package ID: w_cprof_p_11.1.065
Copyright (C) 1985-2010 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
fcc.for(68): remark #7000: Two-digit year return value may cause
problems with the year 2000. Use DATE_AND_TI
ME instead [DATE]
call date (today) !Jeff Glass
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 9.00.30729.01
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Invalid option is ignored
Welcome to AMDIST Today is 10-JUN-10
Output to a print file [Y or N] -->
So, Jeff, what part of "/vms option" is hard to understand?
> I will check the Forum when I get done here. I don't have the time to
> continually park at the Intel forum website if I hpoe to get any work
> done, sleep, or have any kind of a normal life. I think it's B*** S***
> that apparently the only way I can get help getting software up and
> running that I bought and paid dearly for, is by forum or email. This
> will be the last software product I buy from Intel because of the, in
> my opinion, poor customer support. I'm sure they have, what they
> believe are good reasons for doing business this way, and I don't
> respect those reasons and therefore am not interested in discussing
> their reasoning. I don't have the time for this.
As most software companies do, Intel has reason to expect a basic level
of competence and willingness to learn from others. You, apparently,
fall short of meeting those expectations. Your opinions about Intel's
compilers and the documentation, consequently, carry no weight.
Intel compilers are aimed at large projects and high performance. They
are not the best tools for a beginner. And, running out and buying a
high-performance compiler just for the sake of one old dusty program was
not a good decision.
Perhaps, you would be better off looking for a used VAX computer.
<--- CUT: rest of diatribe --->