jcandy1 at san.rr.com
Fri Nov 23 13:13:19 PST 2001
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
> 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.
More information about the Beowulf