FORTRAN compilers
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Jeff Candy jcandy1 at san.rr.comFri Nov 23 13:13:19 PST 2001
- Previous message: FORTRAN compilers
- Next message: [PBS-USERS] big cluster
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bill Dorland wrote: > I've tested three Fortran 90 compilers in this basic environment, on a > suite of scientific codes. They are the Portland Group's f90, NAG > f95, and Lahey/Fujitsu's lf95. I also tried the Portland Group HPF > compiler. > > I have found the Portland Group products to be heavily bug-ridden, and > essentially unusable by a group of scientists that are actively > developing code that uses Fortran 90 (or HPF) features. Moreover, > carefully constructed bug reports submitted to the company failed to > stir them. I strongly advise avoiding this company. My colleagues at > an American national laboratory independently came to the same > conclusions, based on their problems with the PG products. > > The other two compilers, on the other hand, are both very good. My > colleagues and I are fully satisfied with the performance and > compatibility with the Fortran 90/95 standards of both. I expect that > either would perform well for you. I have grown increasingly more unhappy with The Portland Group and its compilers over the last year. In comparison with the Lahey/Fujitsu product (lf95), for example, quality of syntax and run-time error-checking is worse. License management is more tedious. Code generated with pgf90 tends to be slightly faster, but not by any amount that would recommend its use. I believe an average user will produce bug-free code faster with lf95 than pgf90. Jeff
- Previous message: FORTRAN compilers
- Next message: [PBS-USERS] big cluster
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
