kburns@ogicse.ogc.edu (Ken Burns) (01/11/90)
We are looking for a FORTRAN compiler to run on an IBM compatible. We just need to port some programs from our uVAX to the PC world and don't want to spend the big bucks for a Microsoft FORTRAN compiler. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks. Ken Burns kburns@cse.ogi.edu ...!tektronix!ogicse!kburns
ARRITT@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (What a waste it is to lose one's mind.) (01/12/90)
In article <6595@ogicse.ogc.edu>, kburns@ogicse.ogc.edu (Ken Burns) writes: > We are looking for a FORTRAN compiler to run on an IBM compatible. > We just need to port some programs from our uVAX to the PC world > and don't want to spend the big bucks for a Microsoft FORTRAN > compiler. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks. The Microsoft compiler is only a very limited subset of Fortran-77. I tried it and got hundreds of error messages. Although I don't pretend to be a great (or even good) programmer, the code has run on 11 different systems made by 6 manufacturers, ranging from low-end Microvaxes to a Cray X/MP-48. So it's Microsoft's problem and not any quirk of the code. Moral: don't expect a quick and easy port using the Microsoft Fortran compiler. In fairness our Microsoft compiler is a couple of years old. Maybe the more recent ones are better. If your code is very small you might try Lahey Personal Fortran. It is only about $100 or so, but is limited to 64K (yes, that's 64K, not 640K). The next larger is Lahey F77L. It can use up to 640K but costs $595 (ouch). Finally there are 16 and 32 bit versions, for up to 4 gigabytes. The 32 bit version costs $895 and also requires their $195 DOS extender (double ouch). Anybody know of an AFFORDABLE Fortran-77 compiler? No gee-whiz stuff or even VAX extensions, just a solid, clean F-77 standard? Has anyone used the Ryan-McFarland or other compilers? ________________________________________________________________________ Ray Arritt | "What a waste it is to lose one's Dept. of Physics and Astronomy | mind, or not to have a mind. How Univ. of Kansas | true that is." Lawrence, KS 66045 | J.D. Quayle, 10 May 1989 arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | arritt@ukanvax.bitnet |
tholen@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (David Tholen) (01/12/90)
In article <21117@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, ARRITT@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu) writes: > In article <6595@ogicse.ogc.edu>, kburns@ogicse.ogc.edu (Ken Burns) writes: > > We are looking for a FORTRAN compiler to run on an IBM compatible. > > We just need to port some programs from our uVAX to the PC world > > and don't want to spend the big bucks for a Microsoft FORTRAN > > compiler. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks. > > > The Microsoft compiler is only a very limited subset of Fortran-77. > I tried it and got hundreds of error messages. Although I don't pretend > to be a great (or even good) programmer, the code has run on 11 different > systems made by 6 manufacturers, ranging from low-end Microvaxes to a > Cray X/MP-48. So it's Microsoft's problem and not any quirk of the code. > > Moral: > don't expect a quick and easy port using the Microsoft Fortran compiler. > In fairness our Microsoft compiler is a couple of years old. Maybe the more > recent ones are better. > Sounds like it's more than a couple years old. The last Microsoft FORTRAN compiler that had support for only the FORTRAN 77 subset was version 3.31. The most recent Microsoft FORTRAN compiler is version 5.0 (with rumors of a beta-test version of what I presume to be a maintenance release floating around out there). This version has full ANSI FORTRAN 77 support, plus several 8x extensions (array syntax, DO WHILE, for example), and it supports virtually all VAX FORTRAN syntax, including structures (but not QUAD PRECISION, for example). I do ports from Microsoft FORTRAN to Sun FORTRAN and BSD 4.3 UNIX FORTRAN and Cray CFT77 FORTRAN and back all the time. None of them is perfectly bug free, but I actually prefer the Microsoft compiler over the Sun and BSD compilers. CodeView beats abd and dbx for debugging (in my opinion). The ports are quick and easy, once you've taken the time to understand the memory models imposed by the Intel segmented memory architecture. I've seen mail order prices as low as about $260. Is that big bucks? I'd sell you my version 4.1 compiler for less; it's sitting around doing nothing since I upgraded to version 5, and it supports the full ANSI standard. No 8x extensions, though, and not many VAX extensions either. Those are the principal improvements between versions 4.1 and 5.0. Both even run under OS/2 as well, for what it's worth. tholen@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (01/12/90)
In article <21117@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> ARRITT@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >Anybody know of an AFFORDABLE Fortran-77 compiler? No gee-whiz stuff or >even VAX extensions, just a solid, clean F-77 standard? Has anyone used >the Ryan-McFarland or other compilers? There is WATFOR77 and it's available for various operating systems. I used it at the University of Waterloo for various courses and programming jobs using VAX/VMS, VM/CMS, MS-DOS computers. It got the work done. Here's WATCOM's address from some product information that I have. WATCOM Order: 1-800-265-4555 USA: Suite 306-21 1430 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138-3810 Canada: 415 Phillip Street Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3X2 Telephone: 519-886-3700 Telex: 06-955458 FAX: 519-747-4971 -- Andy Toy, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Internet: andy@mks.com 35 King Street North, Waterloo, UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!andy Ontario, CANADA N2J 2W9 Phone: 519/884-2270 FAX: 519/884-8861
bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) (01/13/90)
In article <21117@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, ARRITT@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (What a waste it is to lose one's mind.) writes: > The Microsoft compiler is only a very limited subset of Fortran-77. > I tried it and got hundreds of error messages. Although I don't pretend > to be a great (or even good) programmer, the code has run on 11 different > systems made by 6 manufacturers, ranging from low-end Microvaxes to a > Cray X/MP-48. So it's Microsoft's problem and not any quirk of the code. > > Moral: > don't expect a quick and easy port using the Microsoft Fortran compiler. > In fairness our Microsoft compiler is a couple of years old. Maybe the more > recent ones are better. The earlier versions of the Microsoft Fortran compiler were pretty awful. The version that bills itself as the "Microsoft Fortran Optimizing Compiler" was the first one to be halfway reasonable (1987 according to the copyright notice in the documentation). It is pretty much a strict Fortran-77 compiler, without extensions, but is still an *enormous* improvement on the earlier compilers (which says a lot about the earlier compilers ...). Many people's idea of Fortran-77 is a much larger language than the actual standard - no doubt because many manufacturers implemented quite a few extensions that were (nearly) mutually compatible but which were not contained in the standard. The actual F77 language is *much* smaller than what the Fortran compiler on a VAX will accept, for example. Recently (like within the last few months), Microsoft has come out with a new version of their Fortran compiler. I haven't gotten it because I am not doing much with Fortran these days (fortunately), but it is supposed to implement many of the features from other Fortran-77 implementations that were not actually part of the F77 standard. They claim that it is essentially compatible with the DEC VAX Fortran-77 compiler except for some of the hardware-dependent features in the DEC compiler. If you have the older Microsoft compiler you should be able to upgrade for a reasonable fee - probably what you would pay for even a cheap Fortran-77 compiler from somewhere else, and maybe less. If you don't have the older Microsoft compiler you may be able to do better elsewhere, I haven't looked at the Fortran market lately. :-) Bruce C. Wright
DRF6@PSUVM.BITNET (01/13/90)
>Anybody know of an AFFORDABLE Fortran-77 compiler? No gee-whiz stuff or >even VAX extensions, just a solid, clean F-77 standard? Has anyone used >the Ryan-McFarland or other compilers? I converted about 10,000 lines of Fortran 77 originally written for an IBM 370 series machine to an IBM PC (clone) using Ryan-McFarlands fortran compiler. No problem or inconsistancies whatever. There was a problem doing the same task using IBM's Fortran Compiler (written by R-M) and running the software on a clone. Seems as there was some obscure timing problem that enabled the code to run perfectly on a true blue IBM PC, but not on a clone....of course that suited IBM just fine. The programmers at R-M alerted me to that fact after I spent days trying to figure out why the program would simply stop at different times (abend) and at other times run to completion. They guaranteed me that the code would run perfectly if I bought the version of the compiler they marketed directly. I did and the code did run perfectly on any clone I installed the software on. I have to give the people at R-M high marks for customer support if that is worth anything to anybody. David R. Forsman...now writing most applications in QuickBasic