Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:18736 comp.lang.fortran:2049
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!seibel
From: seibel@cgl.ucsf.edu (George Seibel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran I/O (Was: Calling FORTRAN from C)
Message-ID: <11610@cgl.ucsf.EDU>
Date: 18 May 89 02:23:23 GMT
References: <2846@tank.uchicago.edu> <5785@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10087@smoke.BRL.MIL> <17333@mimsy.UUCP> <8197@june.cs.washington.edu> <471@chem.ucsd.EDU>
Sender: daemon@cgl.ucsf.edu
Reply-To: seibel@hegel.mmwb.ucsf.edu (George Seibel)
Organization: Computer Graphics Lab, UCSF
Lines: 18

In article <471@chem.ucsd.EDU> tps@chem.ucsd.edu (Tom Stockfisch) writes:
>In article <8197@june.cs.washington.edu> ka@june.cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) writes:

>In calling fortran from C I would like to avoid the fortran library as
>much as possible.  On our system the fortran i/o junk is almost 100k,
>stripped.  I tend to use fortran just for LINPACK and other stuff that
>does no i/o, so I hate the waste.

It's been my experience that Fortran I/O is pretty terrible in terms
of speed and compiled code volume.  I've actually written code (in fortran)
that reads a formatted record into a character buffer, converts the
ascii characters to integers, multiplies by powers of ten, and sums
to generate a floating point number.  This was significantly faster than
the standard reads.  This strikes me as ridiculous.  Is there some
fundamental reason for the lack of efficiency, or have I just been dealing
with a lot of bad implementations?

George Seibel, UCSF