Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!ilan343
From: ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran compiler for 486 machine
Message-ID: <1991Mar20.222730.22597@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 22:27:30 GMT
References: <1991Mar20.205052.24375@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20

In article <1991Mar20.205052.24375@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>
>I would appreciate recommendations for a Fortran compiler for a 486 machine.

f2c, of course.  It works and it is free.


Seriously, I have been using f2c on an AT/486 machine under Unix/386
for all my FORTRAN compiling.  I am quite please with my set up.  It
makes it very easy to mix FORTRAN and C code and allows me to use the
standard UNIX debugger.

However, I don't have a clear idea on how it stacks up against native
386 compilers.  I had a chance of comparing the f2c/cc (and gcc) combo
against an older version of NDP's Fortran for Unix/386.  I don't have
the numbers here handy, but f2c produced much faster in the LINPACK and
Whetstone benchmarks.

Does anyone have benchmarks on the several the several FORTRAN
compilers for the 386/486?