Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!ogicse!borasky From: borasky@ogicse.ogi.edu (M. Edward Borasky) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: Anyone volunteer to do Fortran vs. C on SPECmarks? Message-ID: <15193@ogicse.ogi.edu> Date: 19 Dec 90 15:22:33 GMT References: <1990Dec11.163826.5439@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <1990Dec15.094523.10622@groucho> <111621@convex.convex.com> <1990Dec19.032301.4449@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <15180@ogicse.ogi.edu> Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Lines: 10 As a side note, it has only been since Convex introduced their vector- izing C compiler that the debate over C vs. FORTRAN for numerical work had ANY valid reason for answering "C". And only the introduction of RISC architectures in the commercial market has given "C" any status as a numerical application language. But I agree with you that f2c- produce C code is likely to be inferior to hand-produced C code. In my original posting I recommended the Livermore FORTRAN Kernel benchmark as a test of C vs. FORTRAN; I think the SPEC test with FORTRAN code pushed through f2c is a waste of time (but then I think f2c is a waste of time, too).