Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!carroll
From: carroll@ssc-vax (Jeff Carroll)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran compiler for 486 machine
Message-ID: <3739@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 21 Mar 91 21:00:36 GMT
References: <1991Mar20.205052.24375@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1991Mar20.222730.22597@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@ssc-vax.UUCP
Reply-To: carroll@ssc-vax.UUCP (Jeff Carroll)
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics
Lines: 23

In article <1991Mar20.222730.22597@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (Geraldo Veiga) writes:
>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.

	I thought you had to link f2c-generated code to both the FORTRAN
and the C libraries. This would be tough for someone (i.e., me) who 
doesn't have FORTRAN on his current favorite machine.

	Also, from cursory inspection of the output of f2c on fairly
simplistic code, it's hard for me to believe that you wouldn't get
dramatically better performance from a direct FORTRAN compiler. I haven't
benchmarked it though.

	I don't have a favorite x86 FORTRAN. I have only used Microsoft's
under DOS, though I know people who use Lahey and like it. Green Hills is
well-behaved in the 386 Unix environments I've used.


-- 
Jeff Carroll
carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com