Re: Fortran/Latex summary (!!)

Article View: comp.sys.dec

Article #2268

#2268

From: Dirk Grunwald
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 1990 07:23

14 lines
1193 bytes

I should have responded earlier.

I've been using the 'F2C' package available from research.att.com, and
then running the results through the C compiler on my DS3100. It's
cheaper the DEC fortran, and seemed to barf less often.  I've had
several programs in which 1.31 fortran died, but f2c -> cc1.31 didn't.
In the cases where f2c -> cc1.31 *did* die, running it through 'gcc'
gave a correct run, albeit 15% slower.

For programs that f77 *did* accept, I didn't see any performance
difference between f77 and f2c. MIPS made a good C compiler.

As for latex, it's out-of-the-box.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <28421@boulder.Colorado.EDU>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!boulder!grunwald

References: <1990Oct18.214239.8322@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!boulder!grunwald
From: grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu (Dirk Grunwald)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec
Subject: Re: Fortran/Latex summary (!!)
Message-ID: <28421@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 20 Oct 90 07:23:27 GMT
References: <1990Oct18.214239.8322@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Lines: 14
In-reply-to: chinch@theory.tn.cornell.edu's message of 18 Oct 90 21:42:39 GMT

Reply to Parent Message