f



A Fortran book for returning to Fortran?

What book would you recommend for returning to Fortran after many years 
without it?

I have several years of Fortran experience, most of it with versions 
before Fortran 77, and never did learn many of the new features of
Fortran 77.

Robert Miles
0
milesrf (102)
10/23/2011 1:53:40 AM
comp.lang.fortran 11941 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

24 Replies
655 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 49

On 10/23/2011 03:53 AM, Robert Miles wrote:
> What book would you recommend for returning to Fortran after many years
> without it?
>
> I have several years of Fortran experience, most of it with versions
> before Fortran 77, and never did learn many of the new features of
> Fortran 77.

How about Fortran 95/2008 ?

Is there a reason you want to stop at Fortran 77 ?

If you are willing to go all the way to modern Fortran, I would go for 
"Modern Fortran Explained" by Metcalf, Reid and Cohen 2011. I have used 
the previous edition and I liked it a lot, and I'm planning to buy the 
current edition:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Explained-Numerical-Mathematics-Scientific-Computation/dp/0199601429/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319359949&sr=8-1


But this book is strictly about modern Fortran. It intentionally avoids 
all obsolete features from Fortran 77.

Cheers,
Daniel.
0
daniel8127 (276)
10/23/2011 8:56:27 AM
On 10/23/2011 4:56 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 03:53 AM, Robert Miles wrote:
>> What book would you recommend for returning to Fortran after many years
>> without it?
>>
>> I have several years of Fortran experience, most of it with versions
>> before Fortran 77, and never did learn many of the new features of
>> Fortran 77.
>
> How about Fortran 95/2008 ?
>
> Is there a reason you want to stop at Fortran 77 ?
>
> If you are willing to go all the way to modern Fortran, I would go for
> "Modern Fortran Explained" by Metcalf, Reid and Cohen 2011. I have used
> the previous edition and I liked it a lot, and I'm planning to buy the
> current edition:
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Explained-Numerical-Mathematics-Scientific-Computation/dp/0199601429/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319359949&sr=8-1
>
>
>
> But this book is strictly about modern Fortran. It intentionally avoids
> all obsolete features from Fortran 77.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
Chivers and Sleightholme f77 textbook remains available for free, e.g.
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~krj/courses/2307/Fortran.77.Book.pdf
Most of the obsoleted features are prior to f77.

-- 
Tim Prince
0
tprince8714 (295)
10/23/2011 1:28:44 PM
*Daniel Carrera* wrote:

> If you are willing to go all the way to modern Fortran, I would go for 
> "Modern Fortran Explained" by Metcalf, Reid and Cohen 2011. I have used 
> the previous edition and I liked it a lot, and I'm planning to buy the 
> current edition:

I bought it. It's a really good book. However the major drawback in my
opinion is the relative high number of forward references (although they
tried to reduce them, as stated in the preface).

-- 
Lurkos

0
10/23/2011 3:57:17 PM
Daniel Carrera <daniel@gmail.com> writes:

> Robert Miles wrote:

>> What book would you recommend for returning to Fortran after many years
>> without it?
>>
>> I have several years of Fortran experience, most of it with versions
>> before Fortran 77, and never did learn many of the new features of
>> Fortran 77.

> How about Fortran 95/2008 ?
>
> Is there a reason you want to stop at Fortran 77 ?

I see nothing in the above to suggest that he wants to stop at
Fortran 77.

0
tholen (16675)
10/23/2011 9:03:40 PM
On 10/23/2011 3:56 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 03:53 AM, Robert Miles wrote:
>> What book would you recommend for returning to Fortran after many years
>> without it?
>>
>> I have several years of Fortran experience, most of it with versions
>> before Fortran 77, and never did learn many of the new features of
>> Fortran 77.
>
> How about Fortran 95/2008 ?
>
> Is there a reason you want to stop at Fortran 77 ?
>
> If you are willing to go all the way to modern Fortran, I would go for
> "Modern Fortran Explained" by Metcalf, Reid and Cohen 2011. I have used
> the previous edition and I liked it a lot, and I'm planning to buy the
> current edition:
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Explained-Numerical-Mathematics-Scientific-Computation/dp/0199601429/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319359949&sr=8-1
>
>
>
> But this book is strictly about modern Fortran. It intentionally avoids
> all obsolete features from Fortran 77.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.

I stopped at Fortran 77 before, but see no reason to do it now.

I haven't seen the Fortran code I'll be working on in the future yet,
and therefore do not want to skip any versions until I know just what
version is needed.

Robert Miles
0
milesrf (102)
10/25/2011 1:12:03 AM
Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> wrote:

> On 10/23/2011 3:56 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote:

> >
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Explained-Numerical-Mathematics-Scientific-Compu
tation/dp/0199601429/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319359949&sr=8-1
...
> > But this book is strictly about modern Fortran. It intentionally avoids
> > all obsolete features from Fortran 77.

I haven't checked that latest book in the Metcalf & Reid (& Cohen)
series, but the prior ones did tend to include the obsolescent features.
Those features were relegated to an Appendix, but they were at least in
the book.

Do note, by the way, that there is a difference between "obsolete" and
"obsolescent". "Obsolescent" means "becoming obsolete", with the
implication that it is not yet actually obsolete. The list of obsolete
(aka deleted) features from F77 is actually pretty small, at least per
the standard. Some (well, many) people might personally judge the
standard's obsolescent features to be obsolete, and I suspect that's
what you are referring to. While I certainly have personal judgements of
some such things myself, I do try to be careful about distinguishing my
judgements from the specifications of the standard.

> I stopped at Fortran 77 before, but see no reason to do it now.
> 
> I haven't seen the Fortran code I'll be working on in the future yet,
> and therefore do not want to skip any versions until I know just what
> version is needed.

As long as you get something with complete coverage of the later
standards, it will also cover you for learning f77. That's because the
later standards deliberately include (almost) all of the features of
f77. The number of exceptions is quite small and pretty easy to learn
without necessarily needing a textbook on them. There are several
features of f77 that are labelled as obsolescent (and some would say
there were others that should have been so labelled) because the same
ends can also be achieved using new features that are seen by the
standards committee as being "better". But the obsolescent features are
still formally part of the new standards, so any text with complete
treatment of the new standards should include coverage of the
obsolescent features.

The only real disadvantage of learning the new standards is that if you
do end up stuck with something that has to stay with f77 for some
reason, you'll likely be a bit depressed at having to do some things the
old ways, which are much harder is some cases.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain
0
nospam47 (9747)
10/25/2011 2:02:25 AM
On 10/25/2011 04:02 AM, Richard Maine wrote:
> I haven't checked that latest book in the Metcalf&  Reid (&  Cohen)
> series, but the prior ones did tend to include the obsolescent features.
> Those features were relegated to an Appendix, but they were at least in
> the book.

Yeah, that's an important point. The version I have here ("Fortran 
95/2003 Explained") has a 7-page appendix that briefly explains every 
single obsolescent feature.


> Do note, by the way, that there is a difference between "obsolete" and
> "obsolescent". "Obsolescent" means "becoming obsolete", with the
> implication that it is not yet actually obsolete. The list of obsolete
> (aka deleted) features from F77 is actually pretty small, at least per
> the standard.

Ok. That's not how I was using the term. I treated "obsolete" as a 
synonym to "obsolescent" and not at all like "deleted". My understanding 
is that these are features that you should not use, and compilers should 
complain about.



> Some (well, many) people might personally judge the
> standard's obsolescent features to be obsolete, and I suspect that's
> what you are referring to. While I certainly have personal judgements of
> some such things myself, I do try to be careful about distinguishing my
> judgements from the specifications of the standard.

Fair enough.


Cheers,
Daniel.
0
daniel8127 (276)
10/25/2011 6:50:28 AM
On 25 Okt., 04:02, nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> Robert Miles <mile...@Usenet-News.net> wrote:
> > On 10/23/2011 3:56 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote:
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Explained-Numerical-Mathematics-Scientific-Compu
> tation/dp/0199601429/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319359949&sr=8-1
> ..
>
> > > But this book is strictly about modern Fortran. It intentionally avoids
> > > all obsolete features from Fortran 77.
>
> I haven't checked that latest book in the Metcalf & Reid (& Cohen)
> series, but the prior ones did tend to include the obsolescent features.
> Those features were relegated to an Appendix, but they were at least in
> the book.
>

In our latest edition, 'Modern Fortran Explained', we do, indeed,
include an Appendix C describing all those features that are formally
obsolescent, like statement functions, many of which will be familiar
to OP. Also, we have an Appendix B which describes a number of
features whose use we, as authors, deprecate. These include not only
ancient ones like COMMON, but also Fortran 2008 features such as the
sync memory feature of coarrays. These are clearly our personal
judgements.

Regards,

Mike Metcalf
0
10/25/2011 6:54:19 AM
On Oct 22, 9:53=A0pm, Robert Miles <mile...@Usenet-News.net> wrote:
> What book would you recommend for returning to Fortran after many years
> without it?
>
> I have several years of Fortran experience, most of it with versions
> before Fortran 77, and never did learn many of the new features of
> Fortran 77.
>
> Robert Miles

"Upgrading to Fortran 90" by Cooper Redwine (available on Amazon used)
is a good book but should be supplemented by a book current to at
least Fortran 95.

0
beliavsky (2212)
10/25/2011 3:04:29 PM
Chapman has a great book:
"Fortran 95/2003 for scientists and engineers" or "Fortran 90/95 for
scientists and engineers", depending on the version that you are
interested in.

0
ebertakis (2)
10/25/2011 8:41:00 PM
Daniel Carrera wrote:

> Ok. That's not how I was using the term. I treated "obsolete" as a
> synonym to "obsolescent" and not at all like "deleted". My understanding
> is that these are features that you should not use, and compilers should
> complain about.

Many compilers still let you use deleted features such as Hollerith strings, 
though the standard does not require that. All standard-conforming compilers 
must let you use obsolescent features such as statement functions, but some 
complain only if you invoke a suitable compile-time option. 

-- 
John Harper

0
john.harper (199)
10/25/2011 8:59:13 PM
On 10/25/2011 3:41 PM, evangelos_bertakis wrote:
> Chapman has a great book:
> "Fortran 95/2003 for scientists and engineers" or "Fortran 90/95 for
> scientists and engineers", depending on the version that you are
> interested in.
>

THe above must be really a good book, becuase someone at ebay try to
sell it for $900 !

But amazon price is $129 for new book.

http://www.amazon.com/Fortran-95-2003-Scientists-Engineers/dp/0073191574

These are my Fortran books:

"The Fortran Automatic Coding System For The Ibm 704 Edpm" "IBM" "Z695.92.I61f 1956" "1956" ""

"Digital Signal Processing In Fortran" "Fred J. Taylor" "TK5102.5.T34 1976" "Hardcover" "1976" ""

"Computational Physics: Fortran Version" "Steven E. Koonin; Dawn C. Meredith" "QC20.7.E4K66 1990"
"1990" "fortran edition"

"Applied numerical methods for digital computation with FORTRAN and CSMP"
"M. L. James; G. M. Smith; J. C. Wolford" "QA297.J3 1977" "Unknown Binding" "1977" "2d ed."

"Fortran 77: Featuring Structured Programming " "Loren P. Meissner; Elliott Irving Organick"
"QA76.73.F25O73 1980" "Paperback" "1980" "[3 ed.]"

"Fundamentals of FORTRAN programming" "Robert C Nickerson" "QA76.73.F25N49 1980"
"Unknown Binding" "1980" "2d ed."

"Fortran 77 for Scientists and Engineers" "J. N. P. Hume; R. C. Holt" "QA76.73.F25H855 1985"
"Paperback" "1985" "2nd ed."

"A Structured Approach to Fortran 77 Programming" "T. M. R. Ellis" "QA76.73.F25E44 1982"
"Paperback" "1983" ""

"Modern Fortran 77/90: The Alternate Edition/Book and 2 Disk" "Gary Bronson" "QA76.73.F25 B745 1992"
"Paperback" "1992" ""

"Ansi Fortran Iv: A Structured Programming Approach" "J. W. Perry  Cole" "QA76.73.F25 .C64 1978"
"Paperback" "1978" ""

"Fortran 95/2003 Explained" "Michael Metcalf; John Reid; Malcolm Cohen"
"QA76.73.F235 .M48 2004" "2004" ""

--Nasser
0
Nasser
10/25/2011 9:59:53 PM
On 10/25/2011 10:59 PM, John Harper wrote:
> Daniel Carrera wrote:
>
>> Ok. That's not how I was using the term. I treated "obsolete" as a
>> synonym to "obsolescent" and not at all like "deleted". My understanding
>> is that these are features that you should not use, and compilers should
>> complain about.
>
> Many compilers still let you use deleted features such as Hollerith strings,
> though the standard does not require that. All standard-conforming compilers
> must let you use obsolescent features such as statement functions, but some
> complain only if you invoke a suitable compile-time option.

Yes, that's what I had in mind. If you use "--std=2008" in (say) 
GFortran, then GFortran should allow but complain about features marked 
as obsolete in F2008, and if instead you use "--std=90", it will only 
complain about features that were already marked obsolete in F90.

This is in general what I would expect. Without compliance flags, I know 
that compilers will often be soft on compliance requirements. For 
instance, I believe that GCC used to let you use C++ comments in C.

Cheers,
Daniel.
0
daniel8127 (276)
10/26/2011 6:34:15 AM
Daniel Carrera wrote:

> On 10/25/2011 10:59 PM, John Harper wrote:
>
>> Many compilers still let you use deleted features such as Hollerith
>> strings, though the standard does not require that. All
>> standard-conforming compilers must let you use obsolescent features such
>> as statement functions, but some complain only if you invoke a suitable
>> compile-time option.
> 
> Yes, that's what I had in mind. If you use "--std=2008" in (say)
> GFortran, then GFortran should allow but complain about features marked
> as obsolete in F2008, and if instead you use "--std=90", it will only
> complain about features that were already marked obsolete in F90.

I would have hoped it would complain about obsolescent as well as obsolete 
features. But I was amused to find 4 compilers treating this program in 3 
different ways.
 
program testobs 
! How do compilers treat obsolete and obsolescent features? 
  implicit none 
  integer sqr,n 
  sqr(n) = n**2 ! statement function 
  print "(8Hsqr(2) =,I2)",sqr(2) ! Hollerith string 
end program testobs 
 
g95 -std=f95 -Wall -Wextra  and 
ifort -stand f95  both complained correctly about both features.

gfortran -std=f95 -Wall -Wextra complained correctly about the Hollerith 
string but did not object to the statement function. (I was using version 
4.4; am still waiting for our systems people to update it.)

Sun f95 -ansi -w4 complained only about the Hollerith string but said 
incorrectly IMHO it's obsolescent.

Conclusion: test your own compilers if obsolescencs and deletedness matter 
to you.

-- 
John Harper

0
john.harper (199)
10/26/2011 9:39:07 PM
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:39:07 +1300, John Harper wrote:

> Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 
>> On 10/25/2011 10:59 PM, John Harper wrote:
>>
>>> Many compilers still let you use deleted features such as Hollerith
>>> strings, though the standard does not require that. All
>>> standard-conforming compilers must let you use obsolescent features
>>> such as statement functions, but some complain only if you invoke a
>>> suitable compile-time option.
>> 
>> Yes, that's what I had in mind. If you use "--std=2008" in (say)
>> GFortran, then GFortran should allow but complain about features marked
>> as obsolete in F2008, and if instead you use "--std=90", it will only
>> complain about features that were already marked obsolete in F90.
> 
> I would have hoped it would complain about obsolescent as well as
> obsolete features. But I was amused to find 4 compilers treating this
> program in 3 different ways.
>  
> program testobs
> ! How do compilers treat obsolete and obsolescent features?
>   implicit none
>   integer sqr,n
>   sqr(n) = n**2 ! statement function
>   print "(8Hsqr(2) =,I2)",sqr(2) ! Hollerith string
> end program testobs
>  
> gfortran -std=f95 -Wall -Wextra complained correctly about the Hollerith
> string but did not object to the statement function. (I was using
> version 4.4; am still waiting for our systems people to update it.)

The Hollerith warning was added in the 4.3.something.  The statement
function warning was added in 4.5.something. 

troutmask:sgk[210] gfc45 -o z -Wall -Wextra -Wsurprising -std=f95 a.f90
a.f90:5.36:

  sqr(n) = n**2 ! statement function
                                    1
Warning: Obsolescent feature: Statement function at (1)
a.f90:6.10:

  print "(8Hsqr(2) =,I2)",sqr(2) ! Hollerith string
          1
Warning: The H format specifier at (1) is a Fortran 95 deleted feature
0
sgk (134)
10/26/2011 10:25:25 PM
John Harper <john.harper@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:

(snip)
> gfortran -std=f95 -Wall -Wextra complained correctly about the Hollerith 
> string but did not object to the statement function. (I was using version 
> 4.4; am still waiting for our systems people to update it.)

There are Hollerith constants and the H format descriptor, which
look similar, but are two different features.

> Sun f95 -ansi -w4 complained only about the Hollerith string but said 
> incorrectly IMHO it's obsolescent.

> Conclusion: test your own compilers if obsolescencs and 
> deletedness matter to you.

-- glen
0
gah (12851)
10/27/2011 1:24:23 AM
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> John Harper <john.harper@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> 
> (snip)
>> gfortran -std=f95 -Wall -Wextra complained correctly about the Hollerith
>> string but did not object to the statement function. (I was using version
>> 4.4; am still waiting for our systems people to update it.)
> 
> There are Hollerith constants and the H format descriptor, which
> look similar, but are two different features.

Thank you Glen for that reminder. Hollerith constants and H have different 
histories: Hollerith constants were deleted by the f77 standard, except that 
its Appendix C says what processors that allow them as an extension must do 
with them. F90 and later standards do not mention them. The H edit 
descriptor lated longer: it was OK in f77, though considered obsolescent by 
Metcalf's "Effective Fortran 77", officially labelled obsolescent by f90, 
and deleted from f95. BTW the index of Adams et al.'s Fortran 2003 Handbook 
has no entry for the H (or nH) edit descriptor but does mention it on p.686. 
(It also has no index entry for the I edit descriptor, described on p.380.)

My phrase "Hollerith string" was lifted from Metcalf's book p.118.

-- 
John Harper

0
john.harper (199)
10/27/2011 9:32:05 PM
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:12:03 -0500, Robert Miles wrote:

> On 10/23/2011 3:56 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote:
>> On 10/23/2011 03:53 AM, Robert Miles wrote:
>>> What book would you recommend for returning to Fortran after many
>>> years without it?
>>>
>>> I have several years of Fortran experience, most of it with versions
>>> before Fortran 77, and never did learn many of the new features of
>>> Fortran 77.

I'd get hold of the oldish "Fortran 90 Explained" by Metcalf & Reid.
It's compact and tells you all you need to bring you reasonably up
to date. 
-- 
Dieter Britz
0
1/26/2012 8:34:15 PM
Dieter Britz <dieterhansbritz@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)
> I'd get hold of the oldish "Fortran 90 Explained" by Metcalf & Reid.
> It's compact and tells you all you need to bring you reasonably up
> to date. 

I still have "Fortran 8x Explained" when they were still expecting
it to finish a little faster.

-- glen
0
gah (12851)
1/26/2012 9:59:07 PM
So far, all I know about which Fortran standard is that it must be one with a compiler available, and probably one available free or at low cost.  Some of the older code I work with may have been written for earlier standards, though.

The first group I talked with about what to do has stopped responding, so it looks best to just get up to date for versions with low cost compilers available what I look for another project that can use Fortran programming.
0
1/26/2012 10:44:32 PM
On 1/26/12 2:34 PM, Dieter Britz wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:12:03 -0500, Robert Miles wrote:
>
>> On 10/23/2011 3:56 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2011 03:53 AM, Robert Miles wrote:
>>>> What book would you recommend for returning to Fortran after many
>>>> years without it?
>>>>
>>>> I have several years of Fortran experience, most of it with versions
>>>> before Fortran 77, and never did learn many of the new features of
>>>> Fortran 77.
>
> I'd get hold of the oldish "Fortran 90 Explained" by Metcalf&  Reid.
> It's compact and tells you all you need to bring you reasonably up
> to date.
Since I'd like to make a $1.25 in royalties (which significantly clouds 
my judgment!) there's also the Fortran 2003 Handbook.  It's pretty 
wordy, but that might be an advantage for older(?) programmers.

Dick Hendrickson
0
1/26/2012 11:45:13 PM
Robert Miles <robertmilesxyz@gmail.com> wrote:

> So far, all I know about which Fortran standard is that it must be one
> with a compiler available, and probably one available free or at low
> cost.  Some of the older code I work with may have been written for
> earlier standards, though.

Provided that the code was actually written for a standard of any
version, it will usually do fine on a compiler for any later version of
the standard. That requirement has been a major consideration in
development of the standards. The exceptions are pretty small, and I'd
prefer not to sidetrack the thread onto a long discussion of the
detailed arcania of them. That's not really likely to be helpful to you.
Even most of the theoretical exceptions based on the standard are not
problems with actual compilers because the compilers tend to support the
few features dropped from the later standards.

Thus you don't need to worry about hunting down an f77 compiler. I'd
recommend against it. You should do fine with an f95 compiler, which is
what most of the current compilers are. You would then have the option
to take advantage of f90/f95 features in any modifications you ended up
doing to the old code. You are also likely to see better compiler
support for current compilers than from trying to dig up an old one.
There aren't yet any f2003 compilers for machines that you are likely to
have available to you, though most of the f95 compilers tend to support
isolated features from f2003.

The biggest kind of problem you are likely to have is code that doesn't
actually conform to any version of the standard. I think I recall you
mentioning that the code might predate f77. Lots of code from that era
used nonstandard practices. You also can't rely on the accuracy of
claims that a code conforms to the standard; it is unfortunately
moderately common for code to be incorrectly labelled as standard
conforming.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain
0
nospam47 (9747)
1/27/2012 1:47:38 AM
Dick Hendrickson wrote:

>> I'd get hold of the oldish "Fortran 90 Explained" by Metcalf&  Reid.
>> It's compact and tells you all you need to bring you reasonably up
>> to date.
> Since I'd like to make a $1.25 in royalties (which significantly clouds
> my judgment!) there's also the Fortran 2003 Handbook.  It's pretty
> wordy, but that might be an advantage for older(?) programmers.
> 
> Dick Hendrickson

I fall under that category and I don't like wordy books. "Fortran 90
Explained" is nice and compact but contains all you need, especially
if you already know an older version of Fortran.
Sorry Dick.
-- 
Dieter Britz (dieterhansbritz<at>gmail.com)
0
1/27/2012 8:44:07 AM
On 1/26/2012 7:47 PM, Richard Maine wrote:
> Robert Miles<robertmilesxyz@gmail.com>  wrote:
[snip]
> Thus you don't need to worry about hunting down an f77 compiler. I'd
> recommend against it. You should do fine with an f95 compiler, which is
> what most of the current compilers are. You would then have the option
> to take advantage of f90/f95 features in any modifications you ended up
> doing to the old code. You are also likely to see better compiler
> support for current compilers than from trying to dig up an old one.
> There aren't yet any f2003 compilers for machines that you are likely to
> have available to you, though most of the f95 compilers tend to support
> isolated features from f2003.
>
> The biggest kind of problem you are likely to have is code that doesn't
> actually conform to any version of the standard. I think I recall you
> mentioning that the code might predate f77. Lots of code from that era
> used nonstandard practices. You also can't rely on the accuracy of
> claims that a code conforms to the standard; it is unfortunately
> moderately common for code to be incorrectly labelled as standard
> conforming.

Although most of the old code I worked with predated f77, I no longer
have access to that code.  Therefore, I'd expect any code I now work
with to be more recent.

Robert Miles
0
milesrf (102)
1/29/2012 1:06:11 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Help needed! Fortran Dll works for compaq fortran not for Intel Fortran
Dear all, I am porting a compaq fortran project (version 6.x) over to the intel fortran compiler (version 8.0). However, crash always happens at the internal write statement under the intel fortran compiler. ========= project brief: ========= The soultion comprises two parts, one is the c++ project, which in charge of the user interface, the other project is a Fortran Dll project. The Fortran Dll is invoked by the C++ project. the problem I meet here is every simple, the C++ project is just a framework of the dialog based mfc win32 application. In the code response to the click OK button, it...

Help needed! Fortran Dll works for compaq fortran not for Intel Fortran #2
Dear all, I am porting a compaq fortran project (version 6.x) over to the intel fortran compiler (version 8.0). However, crash always happens at the internal write statement under the intel fortran compiler. ========= project brief: ========= The soultion comprises two parts, one is the c++ project, which in charge of the user interface, the other project is a Fortran Dll project. The Fortran Dll is invoked by the C++ project. the problem I meet here is every simple, the C++ project is just a framework of the dialog based mfc win32 application. In the code response to the click OK button, it...

Calling a Fortran DLL from Fortran
In calling a FORTRAN DLL, from FORTRAN code, one needs to place the DLL in = a path that is searched by the Windows operating system. Placing the DLL in= a folder other than the ones in the PATH environment variable, will cause = the call to fail. Does anyone know how to call a DLL that is stored in a fo= lder not in the Windows path? In VB one uses the Declare statement to accom= plish that. I tried GETENVQQ to get the Path environment variable, then aug= ment the path of the DLL and then using the SETENVQQ to update the PATH en= vironment variable but I haven't been able to succ...

Fortran to C to Fortran Arrays
I'm doing a little research. I want to create a multi-dimensional array in fortran containing real values and pass it to a C/C++ program. In the C/C++ program the array will be loaded with values gathered using a libjpeg library or something (haven't figured that out yet). Then I want to return this array back to the Fortran program, loaded with data so that it can be handled there. I have not started to write code yet on this I am just researching some. Can this be done? deadpickle wrote: > I'm doing a little research. I want to create a multi-dimensional > array in fortran...

Passing an array from FORTRAN to C then passing it within C and Returning it to FORTRAN
Im trying to read an xml file. What happens is that I have a FORTRAN program that calls a C library that uses libxml2 to read an xml file. The passed array (from FORTRAN) needs to be passed to several functions within the C program before being returned to the FORTRAN program. My question is how do I pass the array within C and how do I return the array to FORTRAN. The code: #include <stdio.h> #include <libxml/parser.h> #include <libxml/tree.h> #include <libxml/xmlstring.h> #include <libxml/xpath.h> #ifdef LIBXML_TREE_ENABLED static void get_ite...

FORTRAN
I was planning on using Fortran 77 for a project I am undertaking, but are there any later versions supporting derived types that have a free online guide (or pdf file) as to the language structure?? ie Fortran 90? Thanks "iantheengineer" <do@youthinkimdaftenuff.edu> wrote in message news:ca3mss$p53$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk... > I was planning on using Fortran 77 for a project I am undertaking, but are > there any later versions supporting derived types that have a free online > guide (or pdf file) as to the language structure?? ie Fortran 90? > You will find lo...

fortran
What's the fortran equivalent to C's kandr2? If there is any. Bill "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote in news:kbameg$2ci$1@dont- email.me: > What's the fortran equivalent to C's kandr2? If there is any. > > Bill > > > My crystal globe is a bit fuzzy at the moment. What is kandr2??? I dont recognize it as a legal keyword/function. Google wont show a man page for it. Sjouke Burry wrote: > "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote in > news:kbameg$2ci$1@dont- email.me: ...

Fortran
Is there cheaper Fortran compilers to Mac Os X than Absoft Pro Fortran v9.0 for OS X or IBM XL Fortran Compiler 8.1 for OS X Commercial versions are Pro Fortran Compiler & Tools 9.0 97PCOSX1 $899.00~ Buy now and XL Fortran Compiler & Tools 8.1 XLFOSX381C $999.00 Buy now Heikki Jamsa heikki.jamsa@mail.suomi.net On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:21:49 +0200, Heikki J�ms� (heikki.jamsa@mail.suomi.net) wrote: > > Is there cheaper Fortran compilers to Mac Os X > than Absoft Pro Fortran v9.0 for OS X > or > IBM XL Fortran Compiler 8....

FORTRAN
POWER TO YOU, EVERY BODY I want to read all frames of a film by fortran software, picture by picture. is it possible ? how? mohsen sajadi <sajadi111@yahoo.com> wrote: > POWER TO YOU, EVERY BODY [Caution: at least here outside the ancient realm of FORTRAN, writing in ALL CAPITALS is considered shouting, and thus impolite...] > I want to read all frames of a film by fortran software, picture by > picture. is it possible ? Probably yes, if that's what you really want to do. But it completely evades me why anyone would want to do that, other than for the perverse fun of be...

Fortran
Another item I found in my friends junk is the "Apple FORTRAN Language Reference Manual" and original floppies. The disks are labeled "FORT 1" and "FORT2" and are in the original cardboard sleeve. There is also a duplicate of the "FORT2" disk in another cardboard sleeve. When I get a chance, I'll see if the disks are still readable. The manual has slight water damage on the back cover, but is otherwise in good shape. If there is any interest, I'll pass it on to my friend. In article <917894e7-4d7d-49af-b08c-89069da9c7e4@q30g2000prq.googlegro...

Fortran
Dear colleges ! I want to work with FortranCompiler and start it from Matlab 6.5. Programs in Fortran should use IMSL,NAG,NETLIB library. Which Compiler do you suggest ?? I have Windows 2000 professional. thanks, Andreas Andreas wrote: > > Dear colleges ! > > I want to work with FortranCompiler and start it from Matlab 6.5. > Programs in Fortran should use IMSL,NAG,NETLIB library. > > Which Compiler do you suggest ?? > I have Windows 2000 professional. You might go to www.fortran.com to see a list of various Windows compilers and features plus links to other use...

How to link an Fortran f77 dll (Absoft Pro Fortran) with an existing f77 dll (Visual Fortran)
Hello, i have to connect an existing Fortran F77 DLL written in Visual Fortran to a new one. How can i link two DLLs together? I search an example, to understand how it works. Please help me! At the moment i have a dll called "example.dll". Within this dll are three functions: DOUBLE PRECISSION FUNCTION EXF1(A,B) !DEC$ ATTRIBUTES DLL_EXPORT :: EXF1 !DEC$ ATTRIBUTES ALIAS : "EXF1" :: EXF1 REAL*8 A,B EXF1=A*2*B RETURN End DOUBLE PRECISSION FUNCTION EXF2(A,B) !DEC$ ATTRIBUTES DLL_EXPORT :: EXF2 !DEC$ ATTRIBUTES ALIAS : "EXF2" :: EXF2 REAL*8 A,B EXF2...

Visual Fortran vs. Pro Fortran
I'm trying to decide between Visual Fortran and Pro Fortran for a software development project. I'm wondering if either is signicantly better when it comes to designing menus and user-dialog boxes in the application program. Thanks in advance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Uebersax, PhD web: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Uebersax wrote: > > I'm trying to decide between Visual Fortran and Pro Fortran for a > software...

VAX VMS Fortran to Fortran 77
I'm Compiling some Fortran source from the FCC using a couple compilers. One is Gfortran, the other is Microsoft Fortran 5.1 and I'm running into some compile errors due to som dialect differences between the VA VMS aqnd Fortran 77. I have Googled until my fingers a sore from typing, and I have not found a good resource that comprehensively spells out the dialect differences. Anyone in the group here know of such a source? Anyone here have experience with going from VAX VMS fortran to Fortran 77? Thanks Jeff Chief Engineer Northern Illinois University On 6/9/2010 10...

Translate Fortran 77 to Fortran 95
Can anyone recommend a reference for translating Fortran 77 idioms to Fortran 95 idioms? This is more than just translating fixed form to free form. I've been tasked with making an estimate for converting old Fortran 77 code to Fortran 95 making some improvements, such as: 1)Make it compile with f95 compiler from the gfortran package. 2)Add IMPLICIT NONE ; 3)Use MODULES; 4)Eliminate GOTO; 5)Eliminate jumping out of loops; 6)Do something about COMMON blocks (mostly used as part of memory management by linker script and to simulate a kind of C struct); And more. The code...

Intel fortran and fortran 77 standard!
Hi! I am trying to recompile lapack 3.0 with Intel fortran, but I am getting compiler errors in ilaenv.f I tried to skip that file to see what happens, but there are more errors. Can Lapack be compiled with Intel compiler at all? I was using CVF 6.1 by now and any hints on how to avoid trouble are welcome. Thanks! Atmapuri. "Atmapuri" <janez.makovsek@usa.net> wrote in message news:QN6jc.1589$37.232466@news.siol.net... > Hi! > > I am trying to recompile lapack 3.0 with Intel > fortran, but I am getting compiler errors in ilaenv.f > I tried to skip that file...

Going from Fortran IV for CDC to any other Fortran
I have been trying trying to help the brother of a hopeful fortran using sister to get her earthquake processing software converted to useable compilable code. (Yes, they might have picked someone else, but,,,) I am acting as moderator of an under-used Fortran forum and trying to do my best. The problems I saw were 1) The program was written for a CDC computer that used integer*4 words of at least 48 bits in width, because all text was stored in 2-D arrays of 6 characters, initialised and manipulated as integers and written out using A6 fomats. 2) calls to machine-dependent timing...

Calling Fortran 77 from Fortran 95
When calling Fortran 77 from Fortran 95, how can I make sure the compiler will pass a contiguous array and not a dope array struct? On 2011-03-06 14:07:38 -0400, sturlamolden said: > When calling Fortran 77 from Fortran 95, how can I make sure the > compiler will pass a contiguous array and not a dope array struct? In a narrow sense your question is meaningless as F77 is a subset of F95. What you probably meant was what happens when a F95 compiler finds that it does not have an explicit interface to some procedure. That is well defined and yields what you are probably thinking of as...

Installing Fortran 95 (The Fortran Company)
This is my first visit and post so I am sure that someone will let me know if this is not the proper forum for this info request. I recently purchased a CD on Fortran95 from The Fortran Company (actually a Fortran CD and a Gygwin CD for Windows XP). If anyone has had experience on a successful installation, I would like to know. I am trying to run what should be simple-minded examples using an associated development interface called Photran and can't seem to get to first base. I would appreciate any comment or re-direction. "TexRon" <ronbowden.mail2@gmail.com> wrote ...

Fortran 77 -> Fortran 95
Hello, I have a long list of "old" Fortran 77 programs running under Windows (I am using the Salford compiler). Now I have to convert them to Fortran 95. Is there an easy way to do this? Do you know about tools to do the converting automatically? Thanks in advance. Cornelia Zuell wrote: <SNIP> wants to convert f77 to f90 I have found Alan Miller's to_f90 to be useful: to_f90.f90 This program takes Fortran 77 code and converts it to make it look more like Fortran 90. http://users.bigpond.net.au/amiller/ Also, plusfort: http://www.polyhedron.com/pf/pflinux.html d...

Why Fortran?
As my subject headline states. Why does anyone still use Fortran for anything? In article <1186155206.735515.136170@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, technohippyGD@gmail.com writes: > As my subject headline states. Why does anyone still use Fortran for > anything? It is the best language for numerical work. It is one of the most understandable languages for any kind of work. There is much old code written in Fortran which continues to be used, not just the compiled code but the source code. It gains new features every few years (i.e. is not a dead language). Good compilers ...

Fortran 77 vs Fortran 90/95
Hi, I'm a Fortran 77 programmer. I haven't switched over to Fortran 90/95. I would like to hear the views of those who switched over to Fortran 90/95. - How different is it from Fortran 77? - What are the advantages of it over Fortran 77? - How stable is Fortran 90/95 compared to Fortran 77? Thanks crash_zero wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm a Fortran 77 programmer. I haven't switched over to Fortran 90/95. > I would like to hear the views of those who switched over to Fortran > 90/95. > > - How different is it from Fortran 77? Since it is a superset of F...

Compaq Visual Fortran or Intel Fortran Compiler?
Hey As a C/C++ programmer (Fortran newbie) I need to port a Fortran-77 (with extensions for namelist/IO, long variable names and include files) source to MS Windows. The original source runs under VMS, with differential compile support (cpp) for a number of Unix systems (Solaris, Digital Unix, IRIX, UNICOS). Which is the fastest way Compaq Visual Fortran or Intel Fortran Compiler for Windows or ...? thanx, Ivo silvestri@isitech.com (silvestri) writes: > As a C/C++ programmer (Fortran newbie) I need to port a Fortran-77 > (with extensions for namelist/IO, long variable names and inclu...

Fortran?
Does Plan 9 support any sort of Fotran programming? Thanks for the help. > Does Plan 9 support any sort of Fotran programming? Not really, f2c can be used to support old code - I used it to do a one-off conversion to C of the few bits of F77 I still needed however if you have a large project this is not much help. An old port of GCC exists but I have no understanding if that would be of help in porting the gnu f77 compiler. sorry -Steve there's f2c: a fortran 77 to C converter... On 8/29/07, strangelove90@gmail.com <strangelove90@gmail.com> wrote: > Does Plan 9 support ...

Web resources about - A Fortran book for returning to Fortran? - comp.lang.fortran

Returning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In retail , returning is the process of a customer taking previously purchased merchandise back to the retailer, and in turn, receiving a cash ...

Mark Zuckerberg Returning To TechCrunch Disrupt
Facebook Co-Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stage at last year’s TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco, where he discussed ...

How-to: Improve the Experience for Returning Users
... – your inbox, your favorite news sources, or your friends’ activity. If you’ve integrated Facebook Login on your website, you can give returning ...

Search Twitter - emilia-clarke-not-returning
Sign in Sign up Search Refresh K. @ kikeurbina 1h Muy malas noticias: 'GAME OF THRONES' STAR EMILIA CLARKE (DAENERYS) NOT RETURNING FOR SEASON ...

Is the Returning CEO a Trend?
... well be wondering if it is a new trend for boards to reach back into their alumni ranks to bring back a CEO when a company is in Is the Returning ...

Returning fire - Flickr - Photo Sharing!
A U.S. Army soldier with the 101st Airborne Division returns fire with a M249 light machine gun during combat operations in the valley of Barawala ...

Marines Celebrate Returning Home With a Huge Pillow Fight Aboard the Airplane - YouTube
Visit http://WelcomeHomeBlog.com for more surprise military homecomings! In this clip, a group of marines celebrate their safe return home from ...

WWE’s Daniel Bryan on WWE 2K16, facing Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania, returning to the ring and life on ...
The four-time WWE world champion discusses whether it is right for Stone Cold Steve Austin to be the cover star of WWE 2K16, as well as who he ...

Damn Fine News of the Day: Kyle MacLachlan is Returning to ‘Twin Peaks’
In case you missed it, David Lynch announced on Twitter Monday that Kyle MacLachlan will reprise his role as Special Agent Dale Cooper in the ...

After returning Port Adelaide to profit, Power president David Koch turns his attention to clearing debt ...
PORT ADELAIDE president David Koch has completed his mission of making the Power a “sustainable business”. Now he has to clear significant debt ...

Resources last updated: 2/18/2016 5:18:34 AM