Fortran - Any other freely available compilers?

Author

Any other freely available compilers?

Bart Vandewoestyne

2005-08-19, 4:18 pm

Suppose you work as an academic or in a commercial business,
then...

1) ... you can use g95, gfortran and F for your academic or business
projects.

2) ... next to those, you can use the Intel compiler for your own
home-projects that are in no way related to your academic work.

Are there, next to g95, gfortran, F and the Intel compiler other
freely available compilers (*) than can be used either at work or
at home?

Thanks,
Bart

(*) By `freely available' i mean `freely downloadable,
installable and usable for however long you want without any kind
of trial period'.

--
"Share what you know. Learn what you don't."

Duane Bozarth

2005-08-19, 4:18 pm

Bart Vandewoestyne wrote:
>
> Suppose you work as an academic or in a commercial business,
> then...
....
> Are there, next to g95, gfortran, F and the Intel compiler other
> freely available compilers (*) than can be used either at work or
> at home?

Depends on the class of compilers, obviously... :)

For a F77 compiler (w/ extensions) there's OpenWatcom at
www.openwatcom.org

beliavsky@aol.com

2005-08-19, 4:18 pm

Bart Vandewoestyne wrote:

<snip>

> Are there, next to g95, gfortran, F and the Intel compiler other
> freely available compilers (*) than can be used either at work or
> at home?

There is Salford FTN95, personal edition, which I believe runs only on
Windows: http://www.silverfrost.com/11/ftn95/overview.asp . To check if
code is standard Fortran, one can use the free Lahey Fortran Source
Check: http://www.lahey.com/check.htm .

Herman D. Knoble

2005-08-19, 4:18 pm

Bart:

If you are going to do commercial work, you need to get
a commercial compiler (like Lahey lf95 for example).

Personal (non-commercial) use, then see freely available
compilers at:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk/fortran.html#Linux
and/or
http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk/fortran.html#Windows

"Commercial" compilers are also listed above.

Skip Knoble

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:16:49 +0000 (UTC), Bart Vandewoestyne
<MyFirstName.MyLastName@telenet.be> wrote:

-|Suppose you work as an academic or in a commercial business,
-|then...
-|
-|1) ... you can use g95, gfortran and F for your academic or business
-|projects.
-|
-|2) ... next to those, you can use the Intel compiler for your own
-|home-projects that are in no way related to your academic work.
-|
-|Are there, next to g95, gfortran, F and the Intel compiler other
-|freely available compilers (*) than can be used either at work or
-|at home?
-|
-|Thanks,
-|Bart
-|
-|(*) By `freely available' i mean `freely downloadable,
-|installable and usable for however long you want without any kind
-|of trial period'.

Rich Townsend

2005-08-19, 4:18 pm

Herman D. Knoble wrote:
> Bart:
>
> If you are going to do commercial work, you need to get
> a commercial compiler (like Lahey lf95 for example).

Why is that? What is wrong with gfortran or g95? Their GPL status does
not prohibit them being used in a commercial environment.

cheers,

Rich

>
> Personal (non-commercial) use, then see freely available
> compilers at:
>
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk/fortran.html#Linux
> and/or
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk/fortran.html#Windows
>
> "Commercial" compilers are also listed above.
>
> Skip Knoble
>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:16:49 +0000 (UTC), Bart Vandewoestyne
> <MyFirstName.MyLastName@telenet.be> wrote:
>
> -|Suppose you work as an academic or in a commercial business,
> -|then...
> -|
> -|1) ... you can use g95, gfortran and F for your academic or business
> -|projects.
> -|
> -|2) ... next to those, you can use the Intel compiler for your own
> -|home-projects that are in no way related to your academic work.
> -|
> -|Are there, next to g95, gfortran, F and the Intel compiler other
> -|freely available compilers (*) than can be used either at work or
> -|at home?
> -|
> -|Thanks,
> -|Bart
> -|
> -|(*) By `freely available' i mean `freely downloadable,
> -|installable and usable for however long you want without any kind
> -|of trial period'.
>

Kevin G. Rhoads

2005-08-19, 4:18 pm

>For a F77 compiler (w/ extensions) there's OpenWatcom at
>www.openwatcom.org

AND it comes with a free C/C++ compiler, if you want, support for
development of real mode DOS programs, Win16, Win32, OS/2 1.x and also
later, both DLLs and EXEs, and 32-bit extended DOS w/ free 32 bit DOS
extenders included. Furthermore, you can cross-compile from any
platform to any other platform. Not officially working is support
for Linux (in development) and for other stuff. Furthermore, you
get open source for the compiler and RTLs.

Bart Vandewoestyne

2005-08-19, 6:56 pm

On 2005-08-19, Herman D Knoble <SkipKnobleLESS@SPAMpsu.DOT.edu> wrote:
> Bart:
>
> If you are going to do commercial work, you need to get
> a commercial compiler (like Lahey lf95 for example).

As Rich already asked: why?

> Personal (non-commercial) use, then see freely available
> compilers at:
>
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk/fortran.html#Linux

Apparently, all the ones that are listed there are either the
ones I mentioned, or they are only F77 and not F90/95...

Oh, and by the way... you might want to know that the link to
Fortran Plus is dead. I haven't found a new and official download
location yet...

> and/or
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/hdk/fortran.html#Windows

Actually, I forgot to mention that I'm only looking for compilers
that run on Linux...

Thanks anyway for the information ;-)
Bart

--
"Share what you know. Learn what you don't."

Bart Vandewoestyne

2005-08-19, 6:56 pm

On 2005-08-19, beliavsky@aol.com <beliavsky@aol.com> wrote:
>
> There is Salford FTN95, personal edition, which I believe runs only on
> Windows: http://www.silverfrost.com/11/ftn95/overview.asp .

Apparently, this is indeed only for Windows... and I forgot to
mention I was only looking for Linux compilers...

> To check if
> code is standard Fortran, one can use the free Lahey Fortran Source
> Check: http://www.lahey.com/check.htm .

I agree this can be usefull, but actually it's not really a full
compiler :-)

Thanks anyway,
Bart

--
"Share what you know. Learn what you don't."

Bart Vandewoestyne

2005-08-19, 6:56 pm

On 2005-08-19, Duane Bozarth <dpbozarth@swko.dot.net> wrote:
>
> For a F77 compiler (w/ extensions) there's OpenWatcom at
> www.openwatcom.org

I am only looking for freely available, downloadable, installable
and runnable Fortran 90/95 compatible compilers that run on Linux...
so no go for this one :-(

Regards,
Bart

--
"Share what you know. Learn what you don't."

Bart Vandewoestyne

2005-08-19, 6:56 pm

On 2005-08-19, Bart Vandewoestyne <MyFirstName.MyLastName@telenet.be> wrote:
> Suppose you work as an academic or in a commercial business,
> then...
>
> 1) ... you can use g95, gfortran and F for your academic or business
> projects.
>
> 2) ... next to those, you can use the Intel compiler for your own
> home-projects that are in no way related to your academic work.
>
> Are there, next to g95, gfortran, F and the Intel compiler other
> freely available compilers (*) than can be used either at work or
> at home?
>
> Thanks,
> Bart
>
> (*) By `freely available' i mean `freely downloadable,
> installable and usable for however long you want without any kind
> of trial period'.

I forgot to mention that I'm only
looking for Fortran 90/95 compilers that run on Linux and are
freely downloadable, installable and usable without any
trial-period.

After reading through the whole thread, next to the ones I've
already mentioned, I haven't found any other compiler that also
meets my requirement. So I can conclude that the ones I've
mentioned are about the ones that are available i guess...

Thanks everybody who contributed to this thread for confirming
that g95, gfortran, F and for non-commercial use also the Intel
compiler are all that I can use for now if I don't want to pay
for my software and still want to keep things legal.

Regards,
Bart

--
"Share what you know. Learn what you don't."

Kevin G. Rhoads

2005-08-20, 7:57 am

You could also spend a little time on eBay looking for people selling
compilers. But, speaking from personal experience, there are few Fortran
compilers offered, their appearance is infrequent, and most are targeting
Win32, a few Mac (various OSes and processors), very few target Linux
unless you are willing to go F77 which you've already indicated you
are not.

So, while not a total waste of time, an eBay search is likely to be a
long chase ...

Alex Gibson

2005-08-20, 6:59 pm

"Rich Townsend" <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:de5b07$d6m$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu...
> Herman D. Knoble wrote:
>
> Why is that? What is wrong with gfortran or g95? Their GPL status does not
> prohibit them being used in a commercial environment.
>
> cheers,
>
> Rich

I know of a few companies that don't allow open source tools
unless there is paid support available.

kia

2005-08-20, 6:59 pm

Rich Townsend wrote:
>
>
> Why is that? What is wrong with gfortran or g95? Their GPL status does not
> prohibit them being used in a commercial environment.

Try and gargle from 9 to 5, and see how long you last in a commercial
environment.

Rich Townsend

2005-08-20, 6:59 pm

kia wrote:
> Rich Townsend wrote:
>
>
>
> Try and gargle from 9 to 5, and see how long you last in a commercial
> environment.
>

Er, I'm not quite sure I'm following you here. Could you be a little
more clear? Last time I worked in a commercial environment, I had no
problem building projects around open-source (in fact, GPL) products.

cheers,

Rich

Jeff Ryman

2005-08-21, 9:56 pm

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:22:39 -0400, Rich Townsend
<rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:

>kia wrote:
>
>Er, I'm not quite sure I'm following you here. Could you be a little
>more clear? Last time I worked in a commercial environment, I had no
>problem building projects around open-source (in fact, GPL) products.
>
>cheers,
>
>Rich

Some environments are very reluctant to allow anything without
commercial support. I recently got a cluster of 6 dual-processor AMD
Opterons running Linux approved for "quality-affecting" work. This is
the first time that occurred on our project (gov't contractor), and
was only possible because we were able to purchase commercial support
from HP for Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation. Without the support
contract, it would have been no go. The only open-source software I
have been able to get approved for Windows is Cygwin, and that only
because it is required to compile the Windows version of some software
we must absolutely have (GNU make, gcc, perl, and a few other pieces
are needed in addition to Compaq CVF or Lahey LF95). It makes little
sense to me, but that's the way it is. I had to wait on Cygwin until
it was regression tested against every onther standard piece of
Windows software on our project, even thought I may not have had all
that software on my system. Had there been a conflict, I would not
have been allowed to get Cygwin at all.
Jeff Ryman
email: rymanjc_at_
excite_dot_com

Rich Townsend

2005-08-21, 9:56 pm

Jeff Ryman wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:22:39 -0400, Rich Townsend
> <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Some environments are very reluctant to allow anything without
> commercial support. I recently got a cluster of 6 dual-processor AMD
> Opterons running Linux approved for "quality-affecting" work. This is
> the first time that occurred on our project (gov't contractor), and
> was only possible because we were able to purchase commercial support
> from HP for Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation. Without the support
> contract, it would have been no go. The only open-source software I
> have been able to get approved for Windows is Cygwin, and that only
> because it is required to compile the Windows version of some software
> we must absolutely have (GNU make, gcc, perl, and a few other pieces
> are needed in addition to Compaq CVF or Lahey LF95). It makes little
> sense to me, but that's the way it is. I had to wait on Cygwin until
> it was regression tested against every onther standard piece of
> Windows software on our project, even thought I may not have had all
> that software on my system. Had there been a conflict, I would not
> have been allowed to get Cygwin at all.
> Jeff Ryman
> email: rymanjc_at_
> excite_dot_com

Thanks for the insight. I would agree that a significant proportion of
companies are wary of open source software, if there is no support
framework in place.

However, I *have* noticed that open source software is not all equal.
Some people will kick up a hell of a fuss about getting support for
Linux; yet at the same time have no qualms in using the standard Perl
distribution, which is 'unsupported' IIRC.

cheers,

Rich

Brooks Moses

2005-08-22, 3:57 am

Bart Vandewoestyne wrote:
> On 2005-08-19, beliavsky@aol.com <beliavsky@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Apparently, this is indeed only for Windows... and I forgot to
> mention I was only looking for Linux compilers...

There's a faint possibility that it would run under Wine, though. (Of
course, the compiled executables would _also_ need to run under Wine,
presuming that they ran at all.)

- Brooks

--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.

Richard E Maine

2005-08-22, 7:02 pm

In article <debdhq$82r$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>,
Rich Townsend <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:

> However, I *have* noticed that open source software is not all equal.
> Some people will kick up a hell of a fuss about getting support for
> Linux; yet at the same time have no qualms in using the standard Perl
> distribution, which is 'unsupported' IIRC.

Well, yes. Quite possibly a case of simple prejudice based on particular
names. The name "Linux" seems at times to get special treatment based on
nothing other than the name.

I've seen similar prejudices about matters Fortran. For example, there
was a project here that had a manager who refused to accept Fortran 90
code. There wasn't actually any standard on what would be accepted....
other than that it couldn't be named f90. I swear that if I had said
that I was using a C autocoder with a runtime support library, all would
have been fine... as long as I didn't let it slip out that the name of
this "autocoder" involved f90. NAG's f90 could validly be described that
way. The project did use other 3rd-party C autocoders with similar
requirements for proprietary run-time support libraries.

Of course, some of the same folk also had problems understanding terms
like "proprietary", which they liked to use as a buzz-word, without
actually understanding its meaning. I was amused when an argument was
advanced that we should avoid using an open data format developed here
and instead use a closed commercial data format. While there might or
might not have been some actual merit to the change, the main argument
put forth for the change was to avoid using proprietary formats. No, you
didn't get it backwards - we should get rid of our open, non-proprietary
format and move to a proprietary one because proprietary formats were a
bad idea. :-) The proposers clearly had picked up on "proprietary" as a
good buzz-word to use, but forgot to check what it actually meant.

--
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

Sponsored Links