Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!cmcl2!adm!smoke!chidsey
From: chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: NAG Compiler, was Re: comp.lang.fortran
Message-ID: <16558@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 27 Jun 91 17:06:01 GMT
References: <1991Jun27.125026.14993@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 27

In article <1991Jun27.125026.14993@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) writes:
<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?
<
<Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York, NY  10027

	With 47 undetected errors in 200 lines, end of execution should
have arrived commendably quickly, or been postponed forever.  I vote for
ending commendably quickly, with lots of output.   In 'core' 8-).

											Irv

-- 
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.  They do not tell me what their policy 
is.  They may not have one.		Irving L. Chidsey  <chidsey@brl.mil>