Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF 
Author Message
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF

Anybody knows how big the difference is? Are there any significant
improvements from CVF to IVF?


Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:35:25 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF

Quote:

> Anybody knows how big the difference is? Are there any significant
> improvements from CVF to IVF?

Most if not all of the "public" differences are described on Intel's web
site.  Source code is almost 100% compatible.  module use names may need
to change slightly, many additional Windows APIs are documented, some
errors in the definitions fixed and more standard conforming (used to be
a lot of usage of 16#xxxxxxxx instead of z'xxxxxxxx', don't know that
that has universally changed though (I prefer the 16# syntax anyway)).

--

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, 02 Aug 2010 09:59:22 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF
Quote:

> Anybody knows how big the difference is? Are there any significant
> improvements from CVF to IVF?

The last major Intel CPU type fully supported by CVF was Pentium II, and
64-bit mode was a long way in the future.  Maybe, if you run as if you had
a P-II, don't want any f2003 features, and don't want a supported
compiler, the differences won't be significant.


Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:46:54 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF

Quote:

> Anybody knows how big the difference is? Are there any significant
> improvements from CVF to IVF?

Go to www.polyhedron.com and look at Fortran > Compiler Comparisons

It seems that IVF is faster than CVF on most benchmarks, sometimes
considerably so.  This doesn't say anything about your code, of course.
  I have noticed a great increase in compilation speed since I installed
IVF.



Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:11:31 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF

Quote:

> Most if not all of the "public" differences are described on Intel's web
> site. ?Source code is almost 100% compatible. ?module use names may need
> to change slightly, many additional Windows APIs are documented, some
> errors in the definitions fixed and more standard conforming (used to be
> a lot of usage of 16#xxxxxxxx instead of z'xxxxxxxx', don't know that
> that has universally changed though (I prefer the 16# syntax anyway)).

I've always wondered why the standard insists on the z'xxxxxxxx'
syntax ---I also prefer the #xxxxxxxx one.

And, in the same alignment of ideas... Will the variable format
expressions (e.g., '(<n>I4.0)') ever make it into the standard?

John.



Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:52:44 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF


Quote:

>> Anybody knows how big the difference is? Are there any significant
>> improvements from CVF to IVF?

> Go to www.polyhedron.com and look at Fortran > Compiler Comparisons

> It seems that IVF is faster than CVF on most benchmarks, sometimes
> considerably so.  This doesn't say anything about your code, of course. I
> have noticed a great increase in compilation speed since I installed IVF.

I can confirm that. Pay attention to all the 'Properties' to get the optimum
settings.

Regards,

Mike Metcalf



Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:23:00 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF

Quote:


>>Most if not all of the "public" differences are described on Intel's web
>>site.  Source code is almost 100% compatible.  module use names may need
>>to change slightly, many additional Windows APIs are documented, some
>>errors in the definitions fixed and more standard conforming (used to be
>>a lot of usage of 16#xxxxxxxx instead of z'xxxxxxxx', don't know that
>>that has universally changed though (I prefer the 16# syntax anyway)).

> I've always wondered why the standard insists on the z'xxxxxxxx'
> syntax ---I also prefer the #xxxxxxxx one.

It is much more flexible in specifying the number base (up to base 36 I
think).

Quote:

> And, in the same alignment of ideas... Will the variable format
> expressions (e.g., '(<n>I4.0)') ever make it into the standard?

This has been argued for a long time.  There are too many problems and
limitations with it and the results can be achieved with other methods.

Quote:

> John.

--

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, 02 Aug 2010 21:34:42 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF

Quote:

> > Anybody knows how big the difference is? Are there any significant
> > improvements from CVF to IVF?

> Most if not all of the "public" differences are described on Intel's web
> site.  Source code is almost 100% compatible.  module use names may need
> to change slightly, many additional Windows APIs are documented, some
> errors in the definitions fixed and more standard conforming (used to be
> a lot of usage of 16#xxxxxxxx instead of z'xxxxxxxx', don't know that
> that has universally changed though (I prefer the 16# syntax anyway)).

A good starting point is http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/compilers/28469...
which discusses migrating from CVF to Intel Visual Fortran.

Note that the # syntax, adopted from Microsoft Fortran PowerStation,
has subtly different semantics than the Z'xxx' syntax.  The former is
always an integer constant whereas the latter's type is context-
dependent.

--
Steve Lionel
Developer Products Division
Intel Corporation
Nashua, NH

User communities for Intel Software Development Products
  http://softwareforums.intel.com/
Intel Fortran Support
  http://support.intel.com/support/performancetools/fortran
My Fortran blog
  http://www.intel.com/software/drfortran



Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:15:17 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF

Quote:

>> And, in the same alignment of ideas... Will the variable format
>> expressions (e.g., '(<n>I4.0)') ever make it into the standard?
>> John.

> This has been argued for a long time.  There are too many problems and
> limitations with it and the results can be achieved with other methods.
> --
> Gary Scott


    I have never understood what the problems and limitations are or could be.
Variable Format Expressions (VFE) have been an extension in many Fortran
compilers for over two decades.  AFAIK, they are always implemented with the
same capabilities and limitations.  Thus, it appears that the technology for
implementing them is well known and well understood.  If there are substantial
problems and limitations, please explain what they are.

    I offered a proposal to make VFEs part of standard Fortran in 1996 and 1997
when I was a member of J3.  The paper numbers are 96-071 and 97-109.  The latter
paper is also WG5 paper N1241.  David Levine, then the HP representative to J3,
offered a counter-proposal that he said would "simplify" the feature.  David's
counter-proposal would restrict the contents of VFEs to scalar, non-pointer,
default integer variables.  In contrast, the common extension only required that
the contents of VFEs be scalar numeric expressions of any kind.  David Levine's
paper was 96-083.  I wrote a rebuttal to David's counter-proposal in paper
96-091.

    The entire paper, including rationale, technical specification, and edits to
the standard, were only 2-1/2 pages of single-spaced text.

    Neither my original proposal nor David Levine's counter-proposal got
anywhere.  I do not remember the reasons why other members of J3 were unwilling
to essentially ratify an existing practice.

    If readers are interested, I can post my original proposal in this forum.

--
Craig Dedo
17130 W. Burleigh Place
P. O. Box 423
Brookfield, WI   53008-0423
Voice:  (262) 783-5869
Fax:    (262) 783-5928
Mobile: (414) 412-5869



Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:27:03 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF

Quote:

>  I have never understood what the problems and limitations are or could be.
...
>  I offered a proposal to make VFEs part of standard Fortran in 1996 and 1997
...
>  Neither my original proposal nor David Levine's counter-proposal got
> anywhere.  I do not remember the reasons why other members of J3 were
> unwilling to essentially ratify an existing practice.

I do recall it. But I'm sure not about to rehash the same argument here.
It wasted far too much time back then. Among the things that I recall
were that the proposal was *NOT* just ratifying existing practice, that
even the vendors who supported the existing practice argued against the
proposal based on their experience....and... that trying to argue with
you about it was fruitless. In the end, just voting it down was the only
argument that worked. :-(

--
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain



Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:01:24 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF
(snip)

Quote:
>    I have never understood what the problems and limitations are or
> could be. Variable Format Expressions (VFE) have been an extension in
> many Fortran compilers for over two decades.  AFAIK, they are always
> implemented with the same capabilities and limitations.  Thus, it
> appears that the technology for implementing them is well known and well
> understood.  If there are substantial problems and limitations, please
> explain what they are.

To me, the biggest reason not to implement VFE is that they don't
provide any ability that isn't there with character string format
and internal I/O.

Note that the VFE extension was before internal I/O was added to
the standard, though many compilers that had it also provided an
internal I/O extension.

Some might say they are more readable, and sometimes that is reason
enough to add a feature to the standard.  In this case, I don't
believe it is.

For comparison purposes (PL/I-phobics stop reading), PL/I only
supplies VFE.  There is no feature like the Fortran character variable
format, though there are some that are not available in Fortran VFE.

For EDIT directed I/O, the format data goes on the same statement:

PUT EDIT(X,Y,Z)(F(3,1),X(3),E(10,3),X(3),F(3,1));

PL/I provides FORMAT statements and the R (remote) descriptor:

PUT EDIT(X,Y,Z)(R(FMT));
FMT:FORMAT(F(3,1),X(3),E(10,3),X(3),F(3,1));

Variables are allowed in all format descriptors, including
statement label variables in R descriptors.

PUT EDIT(X,Y,Z)(F(I,J),X(K),E(L,M),X(K),F(I,J));

DCL VFMT LABEL;
VFMT=FMT1;
IF X>3 THEN VFMT=FMT2;

PUT EDIT(X,Y,Z)(R(VFMT));
FMT1:FORMAT((3)F(4,1));
FMT2:FORMAT((3)E(10,1));

with VFEs and the use of variable R (remote) format descriptors one
should be able to do fairly complicated formatting, though not one that
I have sometimes (rarely) used in Fortran: reading in the format string
from an input file.

-- glen



Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:27:55 GMT  
 Difference between Intel Visual Fortran and Compaq VF

Quote:

> (snip)

>>    I have never understood what the problems and limitations are or
>> could be. Variable Format Expressions (VFE) have been an extension in
>> many Fortran compilers for over two decades.  AFAIK, they are always
>> implemented with the same capabilities and limitations.  Thus, it
>> appears that the technology for implementing them is well known and
>> well understood.  If there are substantial problems and limitations,
>> please explain what they are.

> To me, the biggest reason not to implement VFE is that they don't
> provide any ability that isn't there with character string format
> and internal I/O.

> Note that the VFE extension was before internal I/O was added to
> the standard, though many compilers that had it also provided an
> internal I/O extension.

> Some might say they are more readable, and sometimes that is reason
> enough to add a feature to the standard.  In this case, I don't
> believe it is.

With the addition of nonadvancing output a variable repetition is
easy to achieve. Many other forms of flexibility are also provided
by this mechanism. The compactness of VFEs comes at a considerable
price in error proneness.

The VFEs were a quick hack to provide variable repetition back when
there was only a single fixed FORMAT available. They lost relevance
when first internal and then nonadvancing I/O became available.



Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:45:58 GMT  
 
 [ 24 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Building DLLs with Compaq Visual Fortran and Intel Visual Fortran

2. Compaq Visual Fortran or Intel Fortran Compiler?

3. Difference between PGF90 and Compaq Visual Fortran 6.6

4. Creating - Fortran 77 dll for use in Visual Basic 6.0 (not using Compaq Visual Fortran)

5. Intel VF 9 work with Visual Studio 2005?

6. Mixing Compaq Visual Fortran 6 with Microsoft Visual C++ .NET

7. Question on using Compaq Visual FORTRAN with Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0

8. Compaq visual fortran and Watcom fortran

9. using Intel Visual Fortran with Visual C++ 2005 Express

10. Compaq Visual Fortran discontinued: upgrade to Intel Visual Fortran?

11. Intel to acquire Compaq Fortran

12. makefile from linux lahey fortran to intel visual fortran on windows

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software