Date:	Sat, 02 Aug 1997 07:51:08 -0600
From:	kmatick AT binghamton DOT edu
Subject:	Re: What diffence is it? fort77 and g77 [Shameless C plug]
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Message-ID:	<870525867.17817@dejanews.com>
Organization:	Deja News Posting Service
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970725183705 DOT 1915A-100000 AT ideafix DOT cps DOT unizar DOT es> <19970728144352 DOT 08929 AT gil DOT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de> <5rs1vs$87r AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca>
Lines:	31
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <5rs1vs$87r AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca>,
  ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA (Paul Derbyshire) wrote:
>
>
> For those of you masochistic enough to use Fortrash ;-), f2c sounds
> better. Reason: GCC optimizes C so tightly you can't cut it with
> monofilament, and f2c turns the Fortrash into C, which is then GCC'ed,
> with a known, tested, good optimizer. God only knows what g77's idea of
> optimization is... :-)

The fact is that gcc does not really do a great job at optimizing fortran
, or f2c'd fortran. Compile whatever fortran numerical benchmark you want
( eg a whetstone program ) and try it. You will find that f2c + gcc loses
to g77 with the same level of optimization ( eg -O2 ).

The difference is generally only about 10% , however.



> Also, if f2c ever f*cks up, you can mess with the intermediate C file.
> Better still, you can write a bunch of Fortrash programs you learned, and
> feed em to f2c, and look at the resulting C. Then, you have a good handle
> on learning C and can quickly graduate to C programming without needing to
> touch f2c or write another line of Fortrash again! :-)


If you can actually maintain the C code produced by f2c , then you are a
much better man than I .

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

- Raw text -