g95 versus gfortran 
Author Message
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:


>> Gfortran is an example of the second philosophy.  It's even included as
>> part of the official GCC source tree, which means that changes to GCC
>> are immediately and automatically part of GFortran.  For users, this
>> means that if you want the latest GFortran front end, you also get the
>> latest GCC back-end, with whatever improvements and/or bugs and
>> unfinishedness it might have.

> Ah, you probably weren't there when Craig Burley and a couple of good
> men tried to maintain a g77 *outside* the GCC mainline (i.e., before
> August 1997).  It was very hard, prone to mistakes, and disbelieve
> (Should I really trust your updates to the middle/backend that you say
> are necessary to get some decent performance for code compiled by g77 ?).

Indeed -- I think my initial experience with g77 was somewhere in early
fall of 1998.

Quote:
> [ OK, this was long, but there *is* a rationale behind having the
>    Fortran front end inside the GCC repository. ]

Agreed; if my post implied that there wasn't, then I did not write what
I intended!  Regardless, I appreciate the historical perspective; I
hadn't realized that g77 was ever outside the GCC tree, and in
particular hadn't realized that it was so new when I started using it.

- Brooks

--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.



Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:27:24 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran
Dear Group,

Many thanks to all who have replied! I have taken the general advice
received to use as many compilers as possible!

I now installed gfortran next to the g95. In the same process I also got a
30-day evaluation version of the Intel compiler, it seems that for Linux the
Intel compiler is free whereas for Windows one has to buy it, bummer have to
go get a Linux box in due time I guess. At work I use the Sun studio
compiler so I can now run 4 compilers on my code. I guess I should also
install gfotran and g95 at work on the Sun so I can use them there as well.
I assume that they are both supposed to work on the Sun?

Many thanks!

Cheers,
Tim


Quote:
> Dear Group,

> A couple of months ago I have installed g95 on my home PC together with "photran" (in eclipse) and msys. I am quite happy with
> the setup as it allows me do at home most of what I do at work and in some cases even more. Note that at work I work with Sun
> stuff (OS, compiler, etc. etc.). However, the software I develop should be able to run on most platforms (Sun, Linux, AIX, XP,
> and even Mac).

> After intalling g95 I have also run into gfortran. I have been looking at the web sites of both projects but to me I do not
> understand this apparent "double" development of GNU (or at least GNU-like) fortran compilers.

> For me this has raised the following questions.
> 1) Why are two compilers being developed.
> 2) What are the differences between the compilers.
> 3) Which compiler should a fortran program developer (like me) use and why.

> Many thanks in advance for any clarifications/hints/tips anyone can give me!

> Cheers,
> Tim



Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:44:05 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:
> I assume that they are both supposed to work on the Sun?

You assume right. Binary packages of gfortran for sparc-solaris and
x86-solaris are not built any more due to very low demand (only a few
downloads over a year period, IIRC), but they be built from source
(instructions can be found at http://gcc.gnu.org/install/ ; if you have


For g95, there appears to be up-to-date binaries for sparc-solaris and
6-months old binaries for x86-solaris. (http://ftp.g95.org/)

--
FX



Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:51:53 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:
> Dear Group,

> Many thanks to all who have replied! I have taken the general advice
> received to use as many compilers as possible!

> I now installed gfortran next to the g95. In the same process I also got a
> 30-day evaluation version of the Intel compiler, it seems that for Linux the
> Intel compiler is free whereas for Windows one has to buy it, bummer have to
> go get a Linux box in due time I guess.

The Intel compiler for Linux is free only for non-commercial use,
which is defined on the Intel Fortran web site at
http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/219692.htm .


Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:21:31 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:

> Dear Group,

> Many thanks to all who have replied! I have taken the general advice
> received to use as many compilers as possible!

> I now installed gfortran next to the g95. In the same process I also got a
> 30-day evaluation version of the Intel compiler, it seems that for Linux
> the
> Intel compiler is free whereas for Windows one has to buy it, bummer
> have to
> go get a Linux box in due time I guess.

On the other hand, if everybody bought a Linux box and only used the
free version, people who bought the Windows version would no longer be
subsidizing its development and how long would it be around then?

<snip>

Quote:
>> Cheers,
>> Tim

--

Gary Scott

Fortran Library:  http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project:  http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project:  http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford



Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:22:59 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:
> On the other hand, if everybody bought a Linux box and only used the
> free version, people who bought the Windows version would no longer be
> subsidizing its development and how long would it be around then?

For both Windows and Linux, it's not available gratis for commercial use.
Given that the Intel definition of commercial use is rather broad (which
is OK to me, but not universally understood AFAICT), I think not so many
people actually use their compiler under the non commercial licencing.
(According to
http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/219692.htm,
commercial use includes teaching and academic research)

PS: there's also a point in the above page that asks: "If I use the
non-commercial product to build my product, can I open source it?" It
does not provide an answer, but merely a link to a GPL FAQ. I've read the
FAQ, and could not determine what the answer to the question is. Can
someone help me understand this? and yes, I know that NHIAL (noone here
is a lawyer), so you can skip the disclaimer part in your answer :)

--
FX



Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:56:24 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran
Hello,

<snip>

Quote:
> On the other hand, if everybody bought a Linux box and only used the
> free version, people who bought the Windows version would no longer be
> subsidizing its development and how long would it be around then?

OTOH, gcc and g++ seem to have done reasonably well, and I would guess
they are as responsible as anything for the success of C/C++
as languages.  Early in the history of PCs, Pascal was the commercially
favored language, IIRC.

That is, being free does not preclude continued development, nor
wide availability, nor enough quality to be useful.

Some have claimed that lack of a free Fortran 90/95 seriously hurt
Fortran, and we see here "Fortran's dead without a free f03
as of today" posts with fair frequency.

--

Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.



Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:25:53 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:
> > On the other hand, if everybody bought a Linux box and only used the
> > free version, people who bought the Windows version would no longer be
> > subsidizing its development and how long would it be around then?

> For both Windows and Linux, it's not available gratis for commercial use.
> Given that the Intel definition of commercial use is rather broad (which
> is OK to me, but not universally understood AFAICT), I think not so many
> people actually use their compiler under the non commercial licencing.
> (According tohttp://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/219692.htm,
> commercial use includes teaching and academic research)

> PS: there's also a point in the above page that asks: "If I use the
> non-commercial product to build my product, can I open source it?" It
> does not provide an answer, but merely a link to a GPL FAQ. I've read the
> FAQ, and could not determine what the answer to the question is. Can
> someone help me understand this? and yes, I know that NHIAL (noone here
> is a lawyer), so you can skip the disclaimer part in your answer :)

Quoting the Intel site,

"Q. If I use the non-commercial product to build my product, can I
open source it?
A. The FAQ for GNU GPL has information related to this question.
Please refer to the GNU website "Frequently Asked Questions about the
GNU GPL" at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html For further
clarification, please contact the Free Software Foundation at: <snip>

Q. I'm developing a product that I provide for free. However, I do
charge for supporting this product. Can I use the noncommercial
products for developing this product?
A. No. Even though the product you develop is free, it is part of an
overall commercial offering."

The first question makes little sense as written. Using the Intel
compiler does not give them rights over your source code, and the
Intel compiler is not GPL'ed anyway. I think the question is whether
one can distribute executables created with a compiler under a non-
commercial license. Looking at the second question and answer, I think
the answer to this is yes, as long as one is not compensated for
distributing or supporting the program.



Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:33:40 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:

> For both Windows and Linux, it's not available gratis for commercial use.
> Given that the Intel definition of commercial use is rather broad (which
> is OK to me, but not universally understood AFAICT), I think not so many
> people actually use their compiler under the non commercial licencing.
> (According to
> http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/219692.htm,
> commercial use includes teaching and academic research)

For those academic purposes, specific licenses are available.


Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:02:20 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:
> Hello,


> <snip>

> > On the other hand, if everybody bought a Linux box and only used the
> > free version, people who bought the Windows version would no longer be
> > subsidizing its development and how long would it be around then?

> OTOH, gcc and g++ seem to have done reasonably well, and I would guess
> they are as responsible as anything for the success of C/C++
> as languages.  Early in the history of PCs, Pascal was the commercially
> favored language, IIRC.

> That is, being free does not preclude continued development, nor
> wide availability, nor enough quality to be useful.

Then we get into issues such as general quality of open source code.
I've looked at a lot and not been too impressed.  On the other hand,
I've not had the opportunity to look at proprietary vendor code.  I
can't help believe though that on average, people who's actual job is
to write compilers, and who have a successfully marketed, profitable
product, will have incentive to write quality, efficient, competitive
code.  I think though, that Intel would not have much incentive to
continue writing high quality software if it was unprofitable.  Yes,
I'm certain that there are plenty of anti-profit-incentive, hacker-
types that will contribute their spare time to writing software that
they give away.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Some have claimed that lack of a free Fortran 90/95 seriously hurt
> Fortran, and we see here "Fortran's dead without a free f03
> as of today" posts with fair frequency.

> --

> Dan Nagle
> Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.



Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:49:25 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:
> people who's actual job is to write compilers

It's worth noting that there are many people whose "actual job" (or "day
job") is to work on open-source software, and especially the core system
components (and I include compilers in this category).

NB: I deliberately extract this part of your post from a middle of a
sentence. From what you wrote, I don't know if you actually are aware of
that. As it is too often overlooked, I wanted to throw my 2 cents here.

--
FX



Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:56:09 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:

>> On the other hand, if everybody bought a Linux box and only used the
>> free version, people who bought the Windows version would no longer be
>> subsidizing its development and how long would it be around then?

> For both Windows and Linux, it's not available gratis for commercial use.
> Given that the Intel definition of commercial use is rather broad (which
> is OK to me, but not universally understood AFAICT), I think not so many
> people actually use their compiler under the non commercial licencing.
> (According to
> http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/219692.htm,
> commercial use includes teaching and academic research)

_Funded_ academic research.  Coincidentally, my dissertation research
lost its sponsorship (and I started getting supported by a research
assistanceship on a different project) about the time I started using
Fortran 95, so I could use the cheap version.

Quote:
> PS: there's also a point in the above page that asks: "If I use the
> non-commercial product to build my product, can I open source it?" It
> does not provide an answer, but merely a link to a GPL FAQ. I've read the
> FAQ, and could not determine what the answer to the question is. Can
> someone help me understand this? and yes, I know that NHIAL (noone here
> is a lawyer), so you can skip the disclaimer part in your answer :)

Note that my f95toTeX conversion program is written for the Intel
compiler, and is released under the GPL.  :)  (On the other hand, I
don't provide compiled binaries, just source code, but that's mostly
just because it never occurred to me to until just now.)

My personal opinion is that, in that case, providing compiled binaries
would also be perfectly legitimate for me to do.  I would have to review
the license conditions on the Intel runtime library to see what its
distribution requirements are, though.

Note, though, that this is simplified because I wrote that code entirely
myself, and thus _I_ don't have to comply with the GPL when distributing
it (though it's nicer if I do, because that makes sure that it's
possible for other people to as well).

If I were to incorporate GPL code from someone else in my project, then
I have to be certain that I was complying with the GPL when distributing
it.  I am not certain about the position of the GPL with regards to
linking with non-free runtime libraries -- this answer says that an
apparently-similar case allowed:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL

This answer, however, seems to pretty clearly say that it's not, because
the Intel Fortran Compiler isn't a major component of the Windows
operating system:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs

(My personal feeling is that the FSF's reading of the license, in that
first answer, disagrees with mine, since Visual C++ is not a major
component of Windows either.)

None of this has anything to do with Intel's license, mind you.  It only
has to do with the GPL, and there are vast numbers of open-source
licenses in the world besides the GPL.  On Intel's side, my reading of
the non-commercial license is that it is possible to release open-source
software in ways that are "commercial", and to release it in ways that
are "non-commercial", and that only the latter is permitted if one uses
the non-commercial version of the Intel compiler to compile it.

Note, further, that the FSF's interpretation of the GPL probably doesn't
matter much if someone else owns the copyright to the code in question.
Personally, if you were to take my GPL-licensed code are compile it with
the Intel compiler and distribute binaries, and your version of the
source code didn't use any Intel-specific extensions (such that it would
be entirely possible to compile it with some other compiler), I would
not consider it a violation of the license I gave you if you distributed
binaries based on the Intel runtime libraries, since those libraries are
functionally equivalent to any other Fortran runtime libraries in that
application.  I can't speak for other copyright holders, of course!

Note that there's also a mailing list for asking GPL questions.  It's
also not staffed by lawyers, though.  :)

- Brooks

--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.



Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:17:39 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:
> _Funded_ academic research.

I don't think the majority of academic research is performed on the
researchers leisure time (if such a thing exists :) and on their own
hardware.

--
FX



Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:28:48 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:

> Quoting the Intel site,

> "Q. If I use the non-commercial product to build my product, can I
> open source it?
[...]
> The first question makes little sense as written. Using the Intel
> compiler does not give them rights over your source code, and the
> Intel compiler is not GPL'ed anyway.

It does, however, give them rights over your compiled binaries, since
those incorporate the Intel runtime library.  This is why the Intel
runtime library comes with a license that lets you distribute things
that include it.  And, similarly, why the runtime library in GFortran is
not licensed purely under the GPL, but includes an exemption that allows
one to compile proprietary code with GFortran and distribute the
resulting binaries under non-free licenses.

There can be situations in which a runtime library license conflicts
with the GPL, making it impossible to distribute binaries compiled with
that compiler from source code containing GPL-licensed components.
Thus, it is a reasonable question to ask whether this situation applies
to a given runtime library or not.

(After looking at the GPL FAQ on the matter, though, I can understand
why Intel does not wish to definitively answer it!  Though I suspect the
answer is far clearer for the BSD license, and the question doesn't say
"GPL", just "open-source".)

- Brooks

--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.



Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:28:02 GMT  
 g95 versus gfortran

Quote:

>> _Funded_ academic research.

> I don't think the majority of academic research is performed on the
> researchers leisure time (if such a thing exists :) and on their own
> hardware.

Oh, absolutely.  But mine is performed on time for which I am not paid
by the university (in effect, I'm paying the university for the
privilege with my tuition), and this is my computer, so the distinction
does matter to _me_.  :)

- Brooks

--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.



Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:54:09 GMT  
 
 [ 41 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 
 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software