Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:4239 comp.lang.c:34423 Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Fortran vs. C for numerical work (SUMMARY) Message-ID: <1990Dec1.232408.13365@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <1990Nov21.220816.15220@rice.edu> <2173@tuvie> <9458:Nov2721:51:5590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Nov30.183032.5420@ccu.umanitoba.ca> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 23:24:08 GMT In article <1990Nov30.183032.5420@ccu.umanitoba.ca> salomon@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Dan Salomon) writes: >>> 5. There are many numerical libraries written for Fortran. >>Which, given f2c, is no longer an issue. >Does f2c handle conformant arrays properly? I don't recall the fine points, but f2c is a full Fortran 77 "compiler"; if conformant arrays are legal, portable F77, f2c does them. >If so, is the code that it generates maintainable? f2c deliberately does not try to generate maintainable code. That is hard, and nobody has yet produced a program that can do it without human tinkering with the output. In one sense, f2c really ought to be cc2fc -- its primary mission is to be a pre-pass to turn a C compiler into a Fortran compiler. Code maintenance is still better done on the Fortran. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com