Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-winken!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Calling FORTRAN from C (Was: Need matrix inversion C routine).
Message-ID: <1523@auspex.auspex.com>
Date: 1 May 89 20:16:20 GMT
References: <2846@tank.uchicago.edu> <5785@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10087@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2692@tekcae.CAX.TEK.COM> <307@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <1399@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Reply-To: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 24

>Is there anything in pANS C, Fortran 8x, and POSIX that will alleviate this
>situation?

No, because:

	1) the proposed C 89 standard says little if anything about
	   FORTRAN (or is that "Fortran" now?);

	2) I suspect the Fortran 8x standard will say little if anything
	   about C;

	3) the C 89 standard and probably the Fortran 8x standard will
	   probably say very little indeed about calling sequences, or
	   other compiler-dependent and machine-dependent implementation
	   details;

	4) POSIX doesn't say anything about them either.

>It's very annoying, especially these days when all of the really
>high quality numerical stuff is still in FORTRAN and all of the good user
>interface stuff is in C.

This is a "quality of implementation" issue, and was left to the
marketplace; avoid the "there oughta be a law" syndrome.