Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!shenkin
From: shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: comp.lang.fortran
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.125026.14993@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 91 12:50:26 GMT
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 18

In article <5821@cernvax.cern.ch> julian@cernvax.cern.ch (julian bunn) writes:
>
>.... For the purposes of tool testing, I have
>constructed a 200-line set of garbage Fortran code. Using a mainframe
>compiler, this code generates 2 warning errors, and is thus
>presumably considered ready for execution. Converting the code
>to f90 source form and running it through NAG's f90chk, I get
>47 error messages and 33 warning messages, all of them correct.

OK, now for wwhat we're all waiting to hear:  how did the code produced by
f90chk compare in execution time with that produced by the running the 
200-line garbage Fortran program through a vanilla Fortran compiler?

	-P.
************************f*u*cn*rd*ths*u*cn*gt*a*gd*jb**************************
Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York, NY  10027
(212)854-1418  shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu(Internet)  shenkin@cunixf(Bitnet)
***"In scenic New York... where the third world is only a subway ride away."***