GNU Fortran 95: Opinions?

Hi,

gfortran (http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran) is the Fortran 95 compiler that will
replace g77 in the forthcoming 4.0.0 version of the GNU Compiler
Collection, GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org).

Since gfortran is still in development, I know many people have not
had a chance to use it. Snapshots are available from the GCC web site.

While an official release is still several months away, I'm interested in
knowing what Fortraners want from gfortran.

Note that I have *no* official capacity in terms of gfortran, though I
submit patches and do testing. For what it's worth, I'm a Fortran 95
programmer who wants to see GCC be more useful to the Fortran community. A
free compiler helps everyone, including commercial vendors, by making
Fortran 95 readily available.

I assume that compiling g77 code is a priority, as is correctly compiling
Fortran 95.

OpenMP won't be available until later, though progress is being made.

How important is MPI -- MPICH in particular? I'm considering waiting to
pursue this further until Open-MPI has its initial release in November.

Thanks for considered opinions.

--
Scott Robert Ladd
site: http://www.coyotegulch.com
blog: http://chaoticcoyote.blogspot.com

Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> wrote:

>gfortran (http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran) is the Fortran 95 compiler that will
>replace g77 in the forthcoming 4.0.0 version of the GNU Compiler
>Collection, GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org).
>
>While an official release is still several months away, I'm interested in
>knowing what Fortraners want from gfortran.

I would like it to install and run under Windows easily.  By
that, I mean the user should not have to find and install other
software (gcc, Cygwin) nor set up any options beyond environment
variables.  In other words, it should be as easy to install as a
commercial product.

(A substantial free program that installs cleanly and easily is
the statistical package R, which can be installed and used by an
OS idiot.  http://www.r-project.org/ )

>How important is MPI -- MPICH in particular? I'm considering waiting to
>pursue this further until Open-MPI has its initial release in November.

Use of multiple processors by a single program is not important
to my work right now.


--
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC
Address spam-trapped; remove color to reply.
* Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise.
* Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.

Michael Prager wrote:
> Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> I would like it to install and run under Windows easily.  By
> that, I mean the user should not have to find and install other
> software (gcc, Cygwin) nor set up any options beyond environment
> variables.  In other words, it should be as easy to install as a
> commercial product.

Fortran programmers do not want to be Linux/Unix/whatever hackers
so this packaging is important. Also the installation should not
step all over existing software.

gfortran caused my demo version of NAG f95 to suddenly issue
gfortran error messages. gfortran was instantly history for me
as NAG reinstalled with no fuss and stopped issuing gfortran
error messages. It seems that Mac Os X is a standard Unix (good
thing) but that means that there can only be one f95 in the
standard place for installed software (not a good thing in the
circumstances!).

> (A substantial free program that installs cleanly and easily is
> the statistical package R, which can be installed and used by an
> OS idiot.  http://www.r-project.org/ )
>
> 
>
>
> Use of multiple processors by a single program is not important
> to my work right now.
>
>

Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> gfortran (http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran) is the Fortran 95 compiler that will
> replace g77 in the forthcoming 4.0.0 version of the GNU Compiler
> Collection, GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org).
>
> Since gfortran is still in development, I know many people have not
> had a chance to use it. Snapshots are available from the GCC web site.
>
> While an official release is still several months away, I'm interested in
> knowing what Fortraners want from gfortran.
>
> Note that I have *no* official capacity in terms of gfortran, though I
> submit patches and do testing. For what it's worth, I'm a Fortran 95
> programmer who wants to see GCC be more useful to the Fortran community. A
> free compiler helps everyone, including commercial vendors, by making
> Fortran 95 readily available.
>
> I assume that compiling g77 code is a priority, as is correctly compiling
> Fortran 95.
>
> OpenMP won't be available until later, though progress is being made.
>
> How important is MPI -- MPICH in particular? I'm considering waiting to
> pursue this further until Open-MPI has its initial release in November.
>
> Thanks for considered opinions.
>

For my codes, a key issue is TR 15581 support -- allocatable
derived-type components and subroutine arguments. I simply cannot use
gfortran until this functionality is added.

cheers,

Rich


--
Dr Richard H D Townsend
Bartol Research Institute
University of Delaware

[ Delete VOID for valid email address ]

Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Hi,
> While an official release is still several months away, I'm interested in
> knowing what Fortraners want from gfortran.
>
> Note that I have *no* official capacity in terms of gfortran, though I
> submit patches and do testing. For what it's worth, I'm a Fortran 95
> programmer who wants to see GCC be more useful to the Fortran community. A
> free compiler helps everyone, including commercial vendors, by making
> Fortran 95 readily available.
>

First, let me thank your efforts to make gfortran better. It would be
nice to have a free fortran compiler.

1) I would like to have the run time array bounds checking option
(similar to ifc -C). I probably will not even try to code using gfortran
unless it has this option.

2) It would nice if the error messages describe the problem clearly.

3) Good illustrative documentation. I found IBM XL fortran's language
reference manual to be very useful.

4) MPI is good to have, but I can live without MPI.

5) Availability of makefiles to compile codes such as lapack, fftw,
lapack95 etc., I spent/wasted a lot of time to figure out various
options that could go into make files while compiling software... I know
that this varies from machine to machine. But if a makefile template is
shipped with gfortran for the most common platforms, it would attract
many people..


Those are just my views.
raju

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:50:01 -0400
Michael Prager <Mike.Prager.indigo@noaa.gov> wrote:

> Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> wrote:
> 
>
> I would like it to install and run under Windows easily.  By
> that, I mean the user should not have to find and install other
> software (gcc, Cygwin) nor set up any options beyond environment
> variables.  In other words, it should be as easy to install as a
> commercial product.

Let's get this straight. You want the new Fortran 95 front end to gcc to
work without gcc installed.

WTF?

David

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 at 14:27 GMT, Scott Robert Ladd (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> How important is MPI -- MPICH in particular? I'm considering waiting to

Very :)

> pursue this further until Open-MPI has its initial release in November.

Now, if only I could get the symin to acknowledge receipt of my
request for the installation of gfortran.


--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
"Meddle not in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle, and will
piss on your computer."                             - Jeff Wilder

In article <c0tgd.28577$df2.26555@edtnps89>,
Gordon Sande <g.sande@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> gfortran caused my demo version of NAG f95 to suddenly issue
> gfortran error messages. gfortran was instantly history for me
> as NAG reinstalled with no fuss and stopped issuing gfortran
> error messages. It seems that Mac Os X is a standard Unix (good
> thing) but that means that there can only be one f95 in the
> standard place for installed software (not a good thing in the
> circumstances!).

Depending on how you install these, you can have both.  If you use fink,
then gfortran's version of f95 will live in an entirely different
location (under /sw).

Both compilers do use f95 as an executable name (though gfortran also
uses the name gfortran).  You can fix this by setting your path
appropriately or using an alias to point to the NAG version for f95 or
other similar solutions.

This isn't an OS X problem.  I would prefer it if the compilers used
unique names, however. . .

Mike

--
Mike Zulauf
mazulauf@met.utah.edu

Mike Zulauf wrote:
> In article <c0tgd.28577$df2.26555@edtnps89>,
>  Gordon Sande <g.sande@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> Depending on how you install these, you can have both.  If you use fink,
> then gfortran's version of f95 will live in an entirely different
> location (under /sw).
>
> Both compilers do use f95 as an executable name (though gfortran also
> uses the name gfortran).  You can fix this by setting your path
> appropriately or using an alias to point to the NAG version for f95 or
> other similar solutions.

But since neither has useful documentation one is left in need of
the local Unix guru to come and perform a suitable rain dance.
Or one can pick exactly one and install and use it.

Neither deleted the files of the other except for the _little_ issue
you illustrate and that caused one to stop working. Why would one
install both if only one will end up working?

But if one was a Unix guru in need of job security then it is totally
a different issue. Remember the old programmers coloring book with the
picture labeled "This is a bug. Color it job security."

> This isn't an OS X problem.  I would prefer it if the compilers used
> unique names, however. . .
>
> Mike
>

Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> gfortran (http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran) is the Fortran 95 compiler that will
> replace g77 in the forthcoming 4.0.0 version of the GNU Compiler
> Collection, GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org).
>
> Since gfortran is still in development, I know many people have not
> had a chance to use it. Snapshots are available from the GCC web site.
>
> While an official release is still several months away, I'm interested in
> knowing what Fortraners want from gfortran.
>

(snip)

>
> OpenMP won't be available until later, though progress is being made.
>
> How important is MPI -- MPICH in particular? I'm considering waiting to
> pursue this further until Open-MPI has its initial release in November.

MPI is reallly not related to Fortran. It's just a set of libraries
that your Fortran code uses to message passing.

I haven't built any codes with gfortran yet, but I've built a number
of them with g77 using several MPI libraries. Never a problem.

So, I'm guessing that when gfortran is out in more widespread use,
linking in MPI libs will not be much of a problems (famous last
words - right?)\

Also, why are you waiting for OpenMPI? Remember that MPI is a standard
like Fortran. You can try MPICH now and then rebuild your codes with
OpenMPI when it's released. You won't be relearning anything except
for the specifics of compiling, linking, and running MPI codes. I would
suggest giving MPICH a whirl now and then building and trying OpenMPI
when it's available (it should be a good MPI implementation).


Jeff