julian@cernvax.cern.ch (julian bunn) (06/27/91)
Perhaps I can add a measured data point to the compiler versus
translator discussion. For the purposes of tool testing, I have
constructed a 200-line set of garbage Fortran code. Using a mainframe
compiler, this code generates 2 warning errors, and is thus
presumably considered ready for execution. Converting the code
to f90 source form and running it through NAG's f90chk, I get
47 error messages and 33 warning messages, all of them correct.
This opens up new vistas in code testing, and is clear evidence
that the product is certainly more than a dumb translator.
For information, the compiler is invoked in three steps, just like
f77:
f90c name.f90
f90link name.c
a.out
so the C step is invisible. However, the C code contains the necessary
links back to the Fortran code.
Mike Metcalf
metcalf@cernvm.cern.chshenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) (06/27/91)
In article <5821@cernvax.cern.ch> julian@cernvax.cern.ch (julian bunn) writes: > >.... For the purposes of tool testing, I have >constructed a 200-line set of garbage Fortran code. Using a mainframe >compiler, this code generates 2 warning errors, and is thus >presumably considered ready for execution. Converting the code >to f90 source form and running it through NAG's f90chk, I get >47 error messages and 33 warning messages, all of them correct. OK, now for wwhat we're all waiting to hear: how did the code produced by f90chk compare in execution time with that produced by the running the 200-line garbage Fortran program through a vanilla Fortran compiler? -P. ************************f*u*cn*rd*ths*u*cn*gt*a*gd*jb************************** Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York, NY 10027 (212)854-1418 shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu(Internet) shenkin@cunixf(Bitnet) ***"In scenic New York... where the third world is only a subway ride away."***
psmith@convex.com (Presley Smith) (06/27/91)
In article <5821@cernvax.cern.ch> julian@cernvax.cern.ch (julian bunn) writes: > > Stuff deleted... > >.......................................... Converting the code >to f90 source form and running it through NAG's f90chk, I get >47 error messages and 33 warning messages, all of them correct. One question, what did you have to "convert?" If it was standard conforming FORTRAN 77 code, it should run on Fortran 90 without change. Just curious... How about supplying the source of this 200 line program on the net?? Presley psmith@convex.com
shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.125026.14993@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) writes: > >OK, now for wwhat we're all waiting to hear: how did the code produced by >f90chk compare in execution time with that produced by the running the >200-line garbage Fortran program through a vanilla Fortran compiler? Metcalf sent me email saying that he can post to usenet only with difficulty, but that the garbage code really was just garbage and didn't do anything. -P. ************************f*u*cn*rd*ths*u*cn*gt*a*gd*jb************************** Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York, NY 10027 (212)854-1418 shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu(Internet) shenkin@cunixf(Bitnet) ***"In scenic New York... where the third world is only a subway ride away."***