Home > Archive > Fortran > June 2005 > I want a good, free, fortran 77 compiler for winXP
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
I want a good, free, fortran 77 compiler for winXP
|
|
| ÓùêñÜôçò Äåìåóïýêáò 2005-06-08, 4:00 pm |
| I want a good, free, fortran 77 compiler for winXP. I would appreciate it
if you could propose a compiler which works well. Thank you in advance.
| |
| Arjen Markus 2005-06-08, 4:00 pm |
| "ÓùêñÜôçò Äåìåóïýêáò" wrote:
>
> I want a good, free, fortran 77 compiler for winXP. I would appreciate it
> if you could propose a compiler which works well. Thank you in advance.
Why stick to FORTRAN 77? There are good free compilers for Fortran 90/95
too.
You can try the GNU suite of compilers for instance. Together with MingW
that works very well.
Regards,
Arjen
| |
|
| ÓùêñÜôçò Äåìåóïýêáò wrote:
> I want a good, free, fortran 77 compiler for winXP. I would
> appreciate it if you could propose a compiler which works well. Thank
> you in advance.
GNU Fortran G77 for Win32
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5564
| |
| beliavsky@aol.com 2005-06-08, 4:00 pm |
| Arjen Markus wrote:
> "=D3=F9=EA=F1=DC=F4=E7=F2 =C4=E5=EC=E5=F3=EF=FD=EA=E1=F2" wrote:
it[color=darkred]
>
> Why stick to FORTRAN 77? There are good free compilers for Fortran 90/95
> too.
> You can try the GNU suite of compilers for instance. Together with MingW
> that works very well.
I agree with Arjen's advice, but if the OP really wants an F77 compiler
I suggest that he read the comp.lang.fortran thread "Fortran 77
compiler for WinXP" from November 2004, which can be found using Google
Groups.
| |
|
|
| meek@skyway.usask.ca 2005-06-08, 4:00 pm |
| In a previous article, "ÓùêñÜôçò Äåìåóïýêáò" <mc04004@mail.ntua.gr> wrote:
>I want a good, free, fortran 77 compiler for winXP. I would appreciate it
>if you could propose a compiler which works well. Thank you in advance.
>
>
www.openwatcom.org
Fortran 77 with lots of extensions; can target 16, 32 bit DOS,
win16 win32 ...etc. Nice IDE. Can include pieces of assembler
code as subroutines or functions. Has dynamic alloc.,
structures, if then endif, select case, CYCLE,while do,
do enddo, ... any many other things I have never used ...
I run all my programs in a dos window, not as windows
(with task bars check boxes etc.), so I don't know
how to do windows ... but the software bits seem to be
there ready for use.
Bought 2 versions before it turned open source.
I have the open source version running on Windows 98,XP.
If there is a downside ... I would say the runtime error
messages are not very specific (e.g. don't give a line number).
There is a debugger system -- but I've never tried it (I assume
it's still available in the open source version)
I looked at G77/90 briefly but found it unsuitable for my
purposes - also once I got used to the WATCOM IDE I would never
trade it for a command line system!
Chris
| |
| beliavsky@aol.com 2005-06-08, 4:00 pm |
| m @skyway.usask.ca wrote:
<snip>
> www.openwatcom.org
> Fortran 77 with lots of extensions; can target 16, 32 bit DOS,
> win16 win32 ...etc. Nice IDE. Can include pieces of assembler
> code as subroutines or functions. Has dynamic alloc.,
> structures, if then endif, select case, CYCLE,while do,
> do enddo, ... any many other things I have never used ...
> I run all my programs in a dos window, not as windows
> (with task bars check boxes etc.), so I don't know
> how to do windows ... but the software bits seem to be
> there ready for use.
>
> Bought 2 versions before it turned open source.
> I have the open source version running on Windows 98,XP.
> If there is a downside ... I would say the runtime error
> messages are not very specific (e.g. don't give a line number).
> There is a debugger system -- but I've never tried it (I assume
> it's still available in the open source version)
> I looked at G77/90 briefly but found it unsuitable for my
> purposes - also once I got used to the WATCOM IDE I would never
> trade it for a command line system!
> Chris
There is no "G90" AFAIK, only g95 and gfortran. Looking at your list of
F77 extensions, all are in Fortran 90 and 95 and thus in g95 and
gfortran, except possibly the ability to "include pieces of assembler
code as subroutines or functions", which I have not investigated.
Do the Watcom F77 extensions follow the Fortran 90 standard exactly? If
not, the "lock-in" to the Watcom compiler, even though it is free,
could be problematic. There are many Fortran 95 compilers.
| |
| meek@skyway.usask.ca 2005-06-08, 4:00 pm |
| In a previous article, beliavsky@aol.com wrote:
>m@skyway.usask.ca wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>There is no "G90" AFAIK, only g95 and gfortran. Looking at your list of
>F77 extensions, all are in Fortran 90 and 95 and thus in g95 and
>gfortran, except possibly the ability to "include pieces of assembler
>code as subroutines or functions", which I have not investigated.
>
>Do the Watcom F77 extensions follow the Fortran 90 standard exactly? If
>not, the "lock-in" to the Watcom compiler, even though it is free,
>could be problematic. There are many Fortran 95 compilers.
>
I do not know the 90 standard ... but I suspect that many
of the WATCOM extensions would not be exactly compatible, as they
(AFAIK) were developed before there was a F90 standard.
Re. G90 ... I did look at a program ..probably not called G90 but
maybe Gnu 90 ?? which was supposed (by posts in the NG) to be
compatible with Fortran90 standard.
In any case .... (my opinion and experience) the more
"obscure" functions (e.g. bit manipulation) are liable
to be different - or not equally available in all compilers,
so some re-writing is generally required to change compilers,
despite what some people would like.
"If everything is equal then nothing is better."
Chris
| |
| Richard E Maine 2005-06-08, 4:00 pm |
| In article <8JUN05.10352278@skyway.usask.ca>, m@skyway.usask.ca
wrote:
> Re. G90 ... I did look at a program ..probably not called G90 but
> maybe Gnu 90 ?? which was supposed (by posts in the NG) to be
> compatible with Fortran90 standard.
I've never heard of such a thing, on this newsgroup or elsewhere... and
I'm pretty sure I would have. Nor do I recall their ever having been a
serious g90 (under whatever name) development project; by the time a
post-g77 Fortran actually started, f95 was the selected target. By
"serious" I mean one that actually got any measurable amount of work
done, as opposed to just someone wishing that there would be such a
thing, or proposing to look at it.
Now g95 and gfortran exist, as Beliavsky mentions. Both of those, being
f95 compilers, are also f90 compilers... (and f77). I'm almost certain
that's what you are recalling. It really matches quite well except for
the 95 vs 90 bit, which would be easy to forget. I think you are talking
about the same compiler(s) without realizing it.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| meek@skyway.usask.ca 2005-06-08, 4:00 pm |
| In a previous article, Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
>In article <8JUN05.10352278@skyway.usask.ca>, m@skyway.usask.ca
>wrote:
>
>
>I've never heard of such a thing, on this newsgroup or elsewhere... and
>I'm pretty sure I would have. Nor do I recall their ever having been a
>serious g90 (under whatever name) development project; by the time a
>post-g77 Fortran actually started, f95 was the selected target. By
>"serious" I mean one that actually got any measurable amount of work
>done, as opposed to just someone wishing that there would be such a
>thing, or proposing to look at it.
>
You're right Richard, I just looked -- it is called G77 but with a switch
that could be used to recognize "some" F90 features, e.g. free form
source.
I think I was thinking of the Compag Alpha as having
standard Fortran 90 (so it says when I ask)
Chris
| |
|
| m@skyway.usask.ca wrote:
>
> I run all my programs in a dos window, not as windows
> (with task bars check boxes etc.), so I don't know
> how to do windows ... but the software bits seem to be
> there ready for use.
If there's a *viable* alternative to dos window the computing folk would
be thrilled to know about it - otherwise, ditto for CVF*, all windows
bits are there, but very few (users) that are ready, willing and able to
use them.
--
* CVF does make handling dlls very easy - and dlls are central to win
apps, including those that the users might be writing some day (soon).
| |
| meek@skyway.usask.ca 2005-06-09, 3:58 pm |
| In a previous article, bv <bvoh@Xsdynamix.com> wrote:
>m@skyway.usask.ca wrote:
>
>If there's a *viable* alternative to dos window the computing folk would
>be thrilled to know about it - otherwise, ditto for CVF*, all windows
>bits are there, but very few (users) that are ready, willing and able to
>use them.
>
>--
>* CVF does make handling dlls very easy - and dlls are central to win
>apps, including those that the users might be writing some day (soon).
>
I write programs primarily for my own use - I find DOS much
more efficient than windows point and click - especially when
there is an option to use a batch file with a file for "kbd" input.
There might be a similar feature in windows ... but I haven't
seen one yet ... and scripting languages, which seem to be
capable of doing that job are many levels of complication
above DOS batch and "<"
Chris
| |
|
| m@skyway.usask.ca wrote:
>
> I write programs primarily for my own use - I find DOS much
> more efficient than windows point and click - especially when
> there is an option to use a batch file with a file for "kbd" input.
> There might be a similar feature in windows ... but I haven't
> seen one yet ...
"cl is mightier than mouse", as you've put it so nicely, holds true if
dos is turbocharged with a shell such as 4dos - http://jpsoft.com - but
a feature that could make it almost complete, scroll, is still sorely
missing.
As for magic windows bullet that could upend the old dogma, consider the
code snippet that somehow embeds an invisible glue that lets you point &
click to changing the program parameters and running it like any other
win app. Would that be a monumental "shift" or do we forever subjugate
computing to interpretive scripting slugs!?
program ash
*------------------------------------------------
* inv hyperbolic sine - y = asinh(x)
*------------------------------------------------
data tol/1.e-3/, eps/1.e-6/, x/.5/
arsh(x) = log(x + sqrt(x**2+1))
y = x
do
yo = y
y = y - (sinh(y) - x)/cosh(y)
if(abs(y-yo) .le. tol*abs(y)+eps) exit
enddo
print*, 'x =', x, 'asinh(x) =', y, 'arsh(x) =', arsh(x)
end
|
|
|
|
|