Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!road!khb From: khb@road.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Advanced Languages - Floating Point Group ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Two Fortran Standards Message-ID: <123897@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 29 Aug 89 05:24:30 GMT References: <282@unmvax.unm.edu> <303@unmvax.unm.edu> <1598@convex.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - Advanced Languages - Floating Point Group ) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 67 In article <1598@convex.UUCP> psmith@convex.com (Presley Smith) writes: > > stuff about f77 codes not running under f8x compilers ... >What about the vote in X3J3 on Document 58, 111-RRR-12, "Extra Precision >option for DATA statement", that was DEFEATED on a role call vote by 24-13? >To quote from document 111-RRR-12: > > "The committee (X3J3), in a previous action, REMOVED the Fortran 77 > permission for processor to supply extra precision. > > Comment 338.44 deplores the "extra precision" feature of Fortran 77. > > Comment 518.24 suggests that the Fortran 77 rule must remain in order > to be UPWARD COMPATIBLE from Fortran 77. In particular, standard > conforming programs executing on standard conforming Fortran 77 > processors will NO LONGER EXECUTE the same way in Fortran 8x. > Distasteful as the rule may be the committee should recognize that > removing it creates this situation. If this is the intent, it > should be explicitly stated." > >The committee has voted by rejecting 111-RRR-12 to STATE that programs >which use this Fortran 77 feature will NO LONGER EXECUTE THE SAME WAY >in Fortran 8x. 111-RRR-12 was proposal to ADD this feature back into >the Fortran 8x language for upward compatibility. It was defeated. My experience in porting many large codes amongst machines from over 20 different vendors is that codes which rely on this feature (and most of the others brought up in debate) are, in fact, not portable now. Users who have _never_ moved their code off the first processor it was coded on _may_ be bitten by this (very rarely, I suspect). Those that moved vendors, or processors (e.g. cdc 7600 to cyber 180) or even compilers (cft 114 -> cft77) are likely to have purged their code of anything similar to this (or simply not care that answers don't match digit for digit ... in fp codes that is an unreasonable test anyway). > >... push for letter writing campagin for two standards.... If you are concerned about having any reasonable chance to write your code in a language which allows for better libraries, easier to use programatic interfaces, and have a reasonable expectation of having your code port write to: > > Fortran Public Review > X3/CBEMA > 311 First St NW > Suite 500 > Washington DC 20001-2178 As being against there being 2 standards. Note that the opponents of the new standard are nearly all in favor of 2 standards, but few (if any) will change their vote against the new standard (poll taken privately and during debate at the Long Island meeting) to For if there is a f77 standard. It is _possible_ that having two standards will somehow promote something ... but the only clear outcome _I_ can see is maintance of the status quo and freezing fortran development for some years. Keith H. Bierman |*My thoughts are my own. !! kbierman@sun.com It's Not My Fault | MTS --Only my work belongs to Sun* I Voted for Bill & | Advanced Languages/Floating Point Group Opus | "When the going gets Weird .. the Weird turn PRO"