Prev: calling a recursive function in fortran 77 ?
Next: equivalent in fortran of the IDL "where" function
From: Richard Maine on 28 Mar 2010 12:04
Phred Phungus <Phred(a)example.invalid> wrote:

> Richard Maine wrote:
> > Phred Phungus <Phred(a)example.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> What I don't get is that I thought that Nag was still commercially
> >> viable.
> >
> > It is. That was sort of the point - to cite it as a counterexample to
> > Bob's suggestion that an implementation without LOC would not be viable.
> > NAG has sold f90/f95 compilers for longer than any other vendor. One can
> > (and people do, but I won't) debate things such as the speed of
> > executables, but that's not the main definition of commercial viability.
> > Nag does sell compilers. I'm not privy to sales information, but I know
> > that people make their living from its sales. That pretty much does
> > define commercial viability.
> >
> Doesn't the C from MR&C work there? I've heard you talk of Malcolm as
> an innovator of particular prodigousness.

Yes.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 29 Mar 2010 20:19
robert.corbett(a)sun.com wrote:
(snip)

> I would be interested in knowing if NAGWare Fortran does
> provide an option to accept the LOC function.

One could always write one in assembler. I will guess
that it is two executable instructions on most processors.

-- glen
From: robert.corbett on 29 Mar 2010 21:46
On Mar 29, 5:19 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...(a)ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> robert.corb...(a)sun.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I would be interested in knowing if NAGWare Fortran does
> > provide an option to accept the LOC function.
>
> One could always write one in assembler. I will guess
> that it is two executable instructions on most processors.

Two is probably the most common number of instructions
required. It takes one instruction (a return) for some
calling conventions on some processors.

Nonetheless, for the purpose of saying that an implementation
provides a LOC function, the ease of a user providing one of
of his own is not relevant. It might, however, explain why an
implementation that did not provide a LOC function could be
viable, even given the large number of programs that use LOC.

Bob Corbett
From: Richard Maine on 29 Mar 2010 23:45
<robert.corbett(a)sun.com> wrote:

> I would be interested in knowing if NAGWare Fortran does
> provide an option to accept the LOC function.

I doubt it. If so, they have hidden it pretty well. It is not in the
documentation (I just checked the latest version to make sure). The
documention does mention an option to enable some common nonstandard
intrinsics, but LOC isn't one of them. (The option is -dcfuns, which
enables some nonstandard double precision complex intrinsics).

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Jim Xia on 31 Mar 2010 12:08
> I would be very interested in knowing if there is a Fortran
> implementation that does not provide the function LOC.  LOC
> is so commonly used, I would think an implementation that
> did not provide it would not be viable.
>
> Bob Corbett


Your example (with LOC) doesn't compile with XLF. Just let you know
there are compilers think differently from yours :-)

Cheers,

Jim
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: calling a recursive function in fortran 77 ?
Next: equivalent in fortran of the IDL "where" function