These are chat archives for Fortran-FOSS-Programmers/General-Discussion

10th
May 2017
Stefano Zaghi
@szaghi
May 10 2017 03:30
:tada: : a small progress for gfortran, but a big progress for poor Fortran men like Chris and me :smile:
Milan Curcic
@milancurcic
May 10 2017 16:05
@szaghi I suggest we stop using words "poor" and "Fortran" in the same sentence, it only perpetuates the false stigma that this language carries.
Stefano Zaghi
@szaghi
May 10 2017 16:07
@milancurcic Hi Milan, sorry for my bad humor, I promise I'll be more careful in the future, with hope without stigma :smile:
Milan Curcic
@milancurcic
May 10 2017 16:09
@szaghi Thanks Stefano! I am convinced of your genuinely great intentions :)
Neil Carlson
@nncarlson
May 10 2017 17:52
I've been loosely following the recent discussion with great empathy. I want to remind people that Fortran /= gfortran. There are better compilers out there than gfortran. It would be ideal to have a top-notch free Fortran compiler, but that's not where we are right now. I understand that everyone's situation and priorities are different, but it might be worthwhile considering using a different compiler.
Stefano Zaghi
@szaghi
May 10 2017 19:12

@nncarlson Dear Neil, thank you for sharing your thoughts, it is appreciated.

If the idea of Fortran == gfortran was conveyed by me, my bad, it is not my thought neither I want to convey it. In my view a good program must be tested with as much as possible different compilers to obtain cross-verification: compilers are programs as others thus they could (and are) be bugged as others. To me Fortran == iso-standard-xx.

My current feeling is, however, sad. Due to the sempiterna lack of funds in my research institute I have to strongly rely on free compilers; the access to commercial compilers is possible only when we buy core-hours at HPC facilities or when we obtain a grant at them (1 or 2 times for year, in mean). So, my view is strictly related to Intel and GNU: both have serious bugs about OOP, thus this blocks me.

I tested PGI, but it has too much limited support to F03/08 and no support at all to CAF; it was even very inefficient (in some scenario) if compared with Intel and GNU.

I used IBM XLF when I had a grant on PowerPC cluster, it is a great compiler, but it is not an option for x86 GNU/Linux.

Others said great things about Cray, but I did not never accessed to a CRAY cluster.

Finally there is NAG that seems great, but it is too expensive for me and Cineca (the HPC where I often obtain grants) does not provide it.

All said means, *I agree with you, Fortran /= gfortran, but, for someone like me Fortran ~= gfortran + ifort is a good approximation :cry:

Cheers

Neil Carlson
@nncarlson
May 10 2017 20:52
@szaghi, I'm very curious to hear what your OOP issues with the Intel compiler are (perhaps off-line). That is our go-to production compiler now. It had many problems in the past (I reported many) but has greatly improved in the current version. I'm not aware of any current issues that effect me (well, perhaps one ...), but it sounds like it still has some significant problems that I should be looking to avoid.