chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.125026.14993@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) writes: <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? < <Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York, NY 10027 With 47 undetected errors in 200 lines, end of execution should have arrived commendably quickly, or been postponed forever. I vote for ending commendably quickly, with lots of output. In 'core' 8-). Irv -- I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything. I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government to anything, not even by implication. They do not tell me what their policy is. They may not have one. Irving L. Chidsey <chidsey@brl.mil>