dcoster@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Peter Coster) (01/03/90)
I have been trying to use version 2.2 of the Microsoft Fortran compiler for the Mac and have been experiencing some problems. The major problem is that for small array sizes the program seems to work, but for large array sizes the program doesn't work (this has happened for a couple of programs, most recently on a version of the LINPACK benchmark). By "doesn't work" I mean the program disappears into limbo, output that should appear at the terminal disappearing completely. Another, probably related, problem is that on these larger problems the debugger displays blank windows instead of the normal contents of these windows. I have experienced these problems on both a Mac II with 5MB and a SE30 with 4MB. The program was bought by PPPL some time ago, and I am using it at the moment to evaluate the feasibilty of using it for real programs. With its current limitation to toy problems, the recommendation will be a very definite NO! I would also appreciate a response from people who have tried using this and other FORTRAN compilers on the Mac. Many thanks David Coster dcoster@phoenix.princeton.edu
elabed@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Hani El-Abed, MIC at MACC) (01/04/90)
In article <12613@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, dcoster@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Peter Coster) writes... >I have been trying to use version 2.2 of the Microsoft Fortran >compiler for the Mac and have been experiencing some problems. The >major problem is that for small array sizes the program seems to work, >but for large array sizes the program doesn't work (this has happened >for a couple of programs, most recently on a version of the LINPACK >benchmark). By "doesn't work" I mean the program disappears into >limbo, output that should appear at the terminal disappearing >completely. Another, probably related, problem is that on these >larger problems the debugger displays blank windows instead of the >normal contents of these windows. I have experienced these problems >on both a Mac II with 5MB and a SE30 with 4MB. > >The program was bought by PPPL some time ago, and I am using it at the >moment to evaluate the feasibilty of using it for real programs. With >its current limitation to toy problems, the recommendation will be a >very definite NO! > >I would also appreciate a response from people who have tried using >this and other FORTRAN compilers on the Mac. > >Many thanks > >David Coster > >dcoster@phoenix.princeton.edu This is my personal opinion about MS FORTRAN and the Company They bought it from (Absoft)... I think these two compiler are pieces of Garb***e... I had tons of problems with them...I decided to bite the bullet and bought from my own pocket the "Language System Fortan Compiler" that runs under the "Macintosh Programmer's Workshop(MPW)".. I took a finite element program that I had running on a VAX 11-780.. and by golly, It compiled, ran, and even lets me know if my arrays get to big, without touching the source code..The Compiler and MPW cost about $350 from Language System Corp... Lately I have raised my standard I am using C++ for all software development and sometimes call Fortran routines that I link to C++ Go C++ is my new motto... Have a good day.. Sorry Microsoft and Absoft...but those hours I spent through your crummy documentation did go in vain... Hani El-ABed
holiday@tigger.colorado.edu (Matthew Holiday) (01/04/90)
I strongly recommend Language Systems FORTRAN for MPW. I have had it for about 1 1/2 years, and it's been a good performer. It is very VAX-compatible and very robust. The current version is 1.2.1; version 2.0 (which should be out RSN) will have near 100% VAX compatibility and a real optimizer. Support and documentation are very good. The only downside is the expense; for many people, a $400-500 expense for the compiler, MPW, assembler, and a debugger is no small potatoes. MPW can take a while to learn -- but it's worth it! Give me MPW over any other programming environment (Mac, VAX, Unix, etc.) any day! MPW, if you're not familiar with it, has a top-notch editor, a source code management system, most Unix tools, and an interface that allows anything to be done either on the command line or with the mouse (dialog boxes for all tools, compilers, etc. to select options and files). MPW supports C, C++, Pascal, Modula-2, and Simula in addition to FORTRAN. It allows portable mainframe programs (such as most Unix C programs) to run with few or no modifications as MPW tools. LS FORTRAN will support LINPACK and EISPACK routines just fine. In addition, both NAG and IMSL provide subroutine libraries for use with this compiler (NAG, and perhaps IMSL, used LS FORTRAN to develop their Mac libraries). Matt Holiday | "If it were done, when 'tis done, holiday@tigger.colorado.edu | Then 'twere well it were done quickly." University of Colorado, Boulder | -- Macbeth I.vii
housen@ssc-vax.UUCP (Kevin Housen) (01/05/90)
In article <2906@dogie.macc.wisc.edu>, elabed@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Hani El-Abed, MIC at MACC) writes: > > This is my personal opinion about MS FORTRAN and the Company They bought > it from (Absoft)... > > I think these two compiler are pieces of Garb***e... > > I had tons of problems with them...I decided to bite the bullet and > bought from my own pocket the "Language System Fortan Compiler" that > runs under the "Macintosh Programmer's Workshop(MPW)".. > It would be helpful if you were more specific (*tons of problems is not very descriptive). Just to add another opinion, I found the Absoft compiler to be reasonable. I used to use Fortran a lot, but now only occasionally. I too ported a finite element program to the Mac from a Vax and found little trouble (using the Absoft compiler). There are some Vax extensions that Absoft hasn't implemented, but at least in my case they were minor. My major dislike with Absoft fortran is the debugger. Its very slow when you get over several thousand lines of code. My major dislike of the Lang. Systems compiler was that you have to run it under MPW. If you happen to like MPW, their complier may be the way to go. By the way, the current version of Absoft Fortran is 2.4. Perhaps the current version might not have some of the problems mentioned in regard to 2.2. Kevin Housen .
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (01/06/90)
In article <3100@ssc-vax.UUCP> housen@ssc-vax.UUCP (Kevin Housen) writes: >In article <2906@dogie.macc.wisc.edu>, elabed@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Hani El-Abed, MIC at MACC) writes: >> >> This is my personal opinion about MS FORTRAN and the Company They bought >> it from (Absoft)... >> >> I think these two compiler are pieces of Garb***e... >> >> I had tons of problems with them... I too had this experience. This was version 2.2. The compiler generated truly awful code - the worst I have seen since the word "optimizer" was first thought of, in when was it, 1962? The only word for the generated code was "abysmal". Examples - one program had about 20 kilobytes of static data, in a block data subprogram. This is a perfectly natural, normal, garden variety Fortran thing to do. (It was machine generated code, various tables.) This subprogram should occupy 20 kilobytes in the executable file, of course. In the Microsoft Fortran it occupied 120 kilobytes - and this was CODE!!! The data was not in as data at all, but instead it was put in-line as literals in CODE, which copies the data to the data area. In the case of strings, a single byte of data generated 7 bytes of code!!!!! The statement if(i.eq.j .or. k.eq.l .or. m.eq.n) goto 1 was compiled abysmally. The obvious way is to compare i to j, and jump to 1 if the condition is true. Then do that for k.eq.l, then for m.eq.n. NO!! What it did was compare i to j, getting a flag byte for true or false in an accumulator. Then it converted that to a word, then in another step to a doubleword. Repeat for the other to comparisons, then and only then OR the three doublewords together, compare that with zero, and jump on the result. UGH! Doug McDonald
math1h3@elroy.uh.edu (01/06/90)
As long as we are going to chew on this topic, do any of the Absoft critics have comments on their MPW compliler? Benchmarks, or other execution/compilation comparisons? David H. Wagner My opinions are independent of my employer's.