Getting started with f77

[W. eWatson]

BTW, I did a full install of 1.9 on my XP PC, after trying it in Win7.
So far I've been baffled by the documentation, Getting Started v1.8.
First, the fact that it's 1.8 is odd. Second, if one digs into the hlp
files, there is one that shows the 1.9 Getting Started. It looks quite
close to 1.8. However, the tutorial in the hlp looks very out of date,
so is the full pdf of v1.8. It refers to targets and projects that do
not exist.

[Lynn McGuire]

Version 1.8 is the previous release of Open Watcom.

The current release is version 1.9.

We use the command line versions of the compilers and
linker so I am not familiar with the IDE or the
tutorial at all. I tried the IDE about a decade ago
and pronounced it not worthy. That said, the debugger
is excellent (almost as good as Visual Studio) but you
cannot edit code in it.

Lynn

[Marty Stanquist]

I've been using the version 1.9 IDE for both C, C++, and Fortran and have
not had any problems with it.

Marty

"Lynn McGuire" wrote in message news:j509em$ims$1...@www.openwatcom.org...

[Lynn McGuire]

On 9/16/2011 10:18 AM, W. eWatson wrote:

BTW, I can post a zip file of samples of how to build
a small Win32 exe and use the command line compiler
and linker. I have several test programs that I have
built over the years to exhibit actual problems and
supposed problems in open watcom.

BTW, I have been a Watcom / Open Watcom user since
1996. Maybe earlier, I cannot remember. The previous
compiler/linker that I used on the pc (NDP Fortran)
required us to compile to assembly language and then
hand edit that before it would compile cleanly.
Moving to Watcom version 8.0 was quite a relief and a
move forward. Before that we used Unix boxes for our
development.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

I'm sure the Open Watcom IDE is OK for smaller projects.
We have 2600+ source code files, etc. I had problems
getting it to load our project and not crash.

Lynn

[Marty Stanquist]

This confirms something I have suspected for a while. The IDE does get
really slow for larger projects and apparently (as in your case) hits a
point where it is no longer able to load it. I have split all my apps into
subprojects that work well with the IDE. Do you get reasonable performance
running your large app on the debugger?

Marty

"Lynn McGuire" wrote in message news:j50b1f$kev$2...@www.openwatcom.org...

[Lynn McGuire]

Like I said, I have not tried the IDE in a decade or so.
I have no idea what the current version would do for me.

The debugger works beautifully since version 1.8 for me.
We have over 300,000 public symbols in our code since we
/save everything. From version 1.5 ? to version 1.7 the
debugger took about 30 seconds to start up to load the
symbol table (I guess). Somebody fixed that in version
1.8, I have no idea what the fix was, it just works now.
We debug A LOT so that is very important to us.

Lynn

[James Warren]

On 2011-09-16 5:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 9/16/2011 10:18 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
>> BTW, I did a full install of 1.9 on my XP PC, after trying it in Win7.
>> So far I've been baffled by the documentation, Getting Started
>> v1.8. First, the fact that it's 1.8 is odd. Second, if one digs into
>> the hlp files, there is one that shows the 1.9 Getting Started.
>> It looks quite close to 1.8. However, the tutorial in the hlp looks
>> very out of date, so is the full pdf of v1.8. It refers to
>> targets and projects that do not exist.
>
> BTW, I can post a zip file of samples of how to build
> a small Win32 exe and use the command line compiler
> and linker. I have several test programs that I have
> built over the years to exhibit actual problems and
> supposed problems in open watcom.

I use the command line too. I would like to see some
examples of how you use it. I gather you are a "power"
user.

>
> BTW, I have been a Watcom / Open Watcom user since
> 1996. Maybe earlier, I cannot remember. The previous
> compiler/linker that I used on the pc (NDP Fortran)
> required us to compile to assembly language and then
> hand edit that before it would compile cleanly.
> Moving to Watcom version 8.0 was quite a relief and a
> move forward. Before that we used Unix boxes for our
> development.
>
> Lynn

--
jw

[Lynn McGuire]

OK, I will post an example on Monday. I do not do anything
special, I just use wfl386, wcl386 and a script for the
linker since my link file is so big (I name each object
file explicitly).

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

www.winsim.com/testwdw.zip is a mixed C and F77 program
showing a problem with the open watcom debugger (get lost
in the RTL code).

run testwdw.bat to compile and link.

Lynn

[W. eWatson]

I've been away from this for two weeks, but now have at least written a
simple program and that runs successfully. The current documentation
sure doesn't help for anyone just starting into this. In any case, in
the next few weeks I plan to exercise it against some several hundred
lines of code from the distant past that needs improvements.

[Marty Stanquist]

How dated is your legacy code? Do you know if it ever compiled on a PC?

Marty

"W. eWatson" wrote in message news:j6f6h9$6l5$1...@dont-email.me...

[W. eWatson]

1967!! It was never compiled on a PC.

I wrote a simple Hello World program, and it worked. I think I can
probably muscle through descriptive material found in the hlp files
(binnt folder) for what I might need to know about f77. However, they
are not accessible from the Help menu, unfortunately. At least it has an
IDE!

[dpb]

On 10/4/2011 11:00 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
...

>
> 1967!! It was never compiled on a PC.

Quite possibly of little matter depending on what the original coders
used and how much (if any) they relied on either specific extensions or
hardware. Then again, it _could_ be replete w/ system-dependent stuff;
the only way to know is to either read the code knowing what you're
looking for or just throw it at the compiler and see what goes and what
doesn't.

> I wrote a simple Hello World program, and it worked. I think I can
> probably muscle through descriptive material found in the hlp files
> (binnt folder) for what I might need to know about f77. However, they
> are not accessible from the Help menu, unfortunately. At least it has an
> IDE!

As I've pointed at several times in earlier conversations, the only
thing that is actually missing is to create a shortcut to the Fortran
Master Help index either/both (your choice) on the desktop or in the
installed OpenWatcom startup folder. The index help file is

[Drive:\your_OWATCOM_rootdirectory]\binnt\fbooks.hlp

From this point you have a single reference to all the help file topics
and index. You don't need no stinkin' IDE... :)

--

[Marty Stanquist]

You may also come across a few language issues with Fortran 66. See appendix
A of the Fortran 77 standard (A2 Conflicts with ANSI X3.9-1966) if you have
any trouble. Most Fortran 66 should compile as is.

ANSI X3.9-1978
http://www.fortran.com/fortran/F77_std/rjcnf.html
http://www.fortran.com/fortran/F77_std/rjcnf-19.html#sh-20

Marty

"dpb" wrote in message news:j6hjb5$bnj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[W. eWatson]

On 10/5/2011 5:41 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 11:00 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>> 1967!! It was never compiled on a PC.
>
> Quite possibly of little matter depending on what the original coders
> used and how much (if any) they relied on either specific extensions or
> hardware. Then again, it _could_ be replete w/ system-dependent stuff;
> the only way to know is to either read the code knowing what you're
> looking for or just throw it at the compiler and see what goes and what
> doesn't.
>
>> I wrote a simple Hello World program, and it worked. I think I can
>> probably muscle through descriptive material found in the hlp files
>> (binnt folder) for what I might need to know about f77. However, they
>> are not accessible from the Help menu, unfortunately. At least it has an
>> IDE!
>
> As I've pointed at several times in earlier conversations, the only
> thing that is actually missing is to create a shortcut to the Fortran
> Master Help index either/both (your choice) on the desktop or in the
> installed OpenWatcom startup folder. The index help file is
>
> [Drive:\your_OWATCOM_rootdirectory]\binnt\fbooks.hlp

Been there. Done that. The are a number of hlp files. Some may be part
of a tree for all I know. fguide.hlp has the same Starting into 1.9 that
I have complained is out of date in other posts. I think it has the
Kitchen example. No such files exist to support it.

>
> From this point you have a single reference to all the help file topics
> and index. You don't need no stinkin' IDE... :)
>
> --

Although there is a print capability for the hlp files, it's unfortunate
that someone hasn't just gathered it all up and put it into a single pdf
or doc file. One could probably sit around for hours printing all those
hlp file contents out.

[Lynn McGuire]

> Although there is a print capability for the hlp files, it's unfortunate that someone hasn't just gathered it all up and put it into
> a single pdf or doc file. One could probably sit around for hours printing all those hlp file contents out.

There are PDF manuals for OW and specifically OW F77 !
http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Manuals

They are excellent manuals and only a little bit out
of date.

Lynn

[dpb]

On 10/6/2011 11:59 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
> On 10/5/2011 5:41 AM, dpb wrote:

...

>> As I've pointed at several times in earlier conversations, the only
>> thing that is actually missing is to create a shortcut to the Fortran
>> Master Help index either/both (your choice) on the desktop or in the
>> installed OpenWatcom startup folder. The index help file is
>>
>> [Drive:\your_OWATCOM_rootdirectory]\binnt\fbooks.hlp
> Been there. Done that. The are a number of hlp files. Some may be part
> of a tree for all I know. fguide.hlp has the same Starting into 1.9 that
> I have complained is out of date in other posts. I think it has the
> Kitchen example. No such files exist to support it.

...

Well, you can make your contribution to OpenWatcom in updating the doc's
to be consistent w/ the distribution or find what's missing in the
distribution and add it. Far more productive than complaining.

As a point, fguide is the Help file for the Users' Guide. I see no
reference to any examples for the IDE in it at all so whatever you're
referring to that's missing I don't know where the link is.

The fbooks.hlp file is the one that is a top level tree that is quite
useful in that it does have links to all the doc's for the compiler as
well as the various utilities, etc., in one spot. It's basically where
I go if I'm not sure which of (say) the Users' Guide or Programmers'
Manual is the specific one I'm looking for for a specific topic.
Language matters, of course, are in F77LR.Hlp, the F77 Language
Reference Manual.

Looking at the IDE tutorial, the "Kitchen" file referred to is a _NEW_
filename for the project you're going to create as you work through the
tutorial; look at the title of Figure 2, "Creating a new project". So,
there should _not_ be an existing file of that name.

Following on down, I see the target is there that is the predefined
stuff so I'm presuming all is well if you'll just follow through as
directed.

--

[W. eWatson]

Thanks. That looks plenty good. I stumbled onto the Starting 1.9 manual
weeks ago above it, and it's badly out of date. Consequently, I began
to mistrust some of the other manuals there.

[dpb]

On 10/7/2011 3:12 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
...

> ... I stumbled onto the Starting 1.9 manual
> weeks ago above it, and it's badly out of date. ...

I really, really, really doubt that. Nothing of any major significance
has happened to the F77 side of OpenWatcom since it became open. Other
than the name change and the version change to reflect OW release(s), I
suspect like the compiler there's almost no change to the documentation
(nor need there be since there's been no modifications).

See other response on your only afaict complaint--that there's a missing
file "kitchen" in the tutorial. That is _supposed_ to be; it's the
project the tutorial is leading you through making--the next step seems
all there and I would be pretty sure if you would simply follow on
through the steps all will come out in the end.

For confirmation, I checked the release of Watcom F77 V11.6, the last
commercial release I have. It is the same in both the tutorial wording
and in the files in the distribution in that area.

I've never used the IDE, but certainly expect that the commercial
release did actually function and see no reason the OW version wouldn't,
either.

OK, I just went and followed through in both OW and Watcom IDE and both
cases made a KITCHEN project and loaded the targets requested as the
next step in the tutorial.

I haven't completed a full re-installation since I had to rebuild this
system so the environment variables, etc., aren't set so can't finish
linking until I fix that, but there's nothing wrong/missing in the
distribution afaics.

--

--

[W. eWatson]

On 10/7/2011 10:45 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 10/6/2011 11:59 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
>> On 10/5/2011 5:41 AM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>>> As I've pointed at several times in earlier conversations, the only
>>> thing that is actually missing is to create a shortcut to the Fortran
>>> Master Help index either/both (your choice) on the desktop or in the
>>> installed OpenWatcom startup folder. The index help file is
>>>
>>> [Drive:\your_OWATCOM_rootdirectory]\binnt\fbooks.hlp
>> Been there. Done that. The are a number of hlp files. Some may be part
>> of a tree for all I know. fguide.hlp has the same Starting into 1.9 that
>> I have complained is out of date in other posts. I think it has the
>> Kitchen example. No such files exist to support it.
> ...
>
> Well, you can make your contribution to OpenWatcom in updating the doc's
> to be consistent w/ the distribution or find what's missing in the
> distribution and add it. Far more productive than complaining.
>

Maybe in the future. Your expectations are way to high at this point.

> As a point, fguide is the Help file for the Users' Guide. I see no
> reference to any examples for the IDE in it at all so whatever you're
> referring to that's missing I don't know where the link is.

Been there.

>
> The fbooks.hlp file is the one that is a top level tree that is quite
> useful in that it does have links to all the doc's for the compiler as
> well as the various utilities, etc., in one spot. It's basically where I
> go if I'm not sure which of (say) the Users' Guide or Programmers'
> Manual is the specific one I'm looking for for a specific topic.
> Language matters, of course, are in F77LR.Hlp, the F77 Language
> Reference Manual.

Maybe you find fbooks.hlp useful, but at this stage, as a beginner to
Watcom, I do not. I'm no stranger to compilers and languages.

>
> Looking at the IDE tutorial, the "Kitchen" file referred to is a _NEW_
> filename for the project you're going to create as you work through the
> tutorial; look at the title of Figure 2, "Creating a new project". So,
> there should _not_ be an existing file of that name.

OK, let's look. From page 15 above figure 2.
======================
When asked for a project name, you can do one of two things:
1. enter the following pathname:
d:[path]\SAMPLES\IDE\FORTRAN\target\KITCHEN
where d:[path] is the drive and path where you installed the Open Watcom
software, or
2. use the file browser to select the following directory:
d:[path]\SAMPLES\IDE\FORTRAN\target
and specify the filename kitchen.
Figure 2. Creating a new project
Press the ...
==================
I'm using the IDE. 32-bit XP.
The path after ...\FORTRAN\ does not exist. ...\FORTRAN\target does not
exist. Why? What am I missing?

"Specify filename kitchen." How does one do that? Here's what I do.
Figure 2 is of no help. When I use New Project, I get an Open dialog
with noname.exe the entry area. Instead I type something like
myproj.exe, and click the Open button. That gets me to a window that
shows myproj.exe in the title. The manual is off already. The exe raises
an eyebrow. I'll continue below.

Figure 2. What is it referring to? I see it's drilled down to Win32.
What does it have to do with Kitchen or project names?

I'll stop here on the manual discussion.

To create and understand what's going on, several days ago I wrote the
classic Hello, World program. This should be in any introductory
material when someone is learning a language or understanding how a
compiler works.

At first, I got nowhere until I realized that I needed to use the Open
button as above. Next I discovered the Source menu item actually allows
me to select my helloworld.for program I created with an editor.

Now what? Let's make a target. Have fun finding what that means from the
manual. I finally figured it out.

I'll spare you the details. I eventually got through targets, makes, and
execute the program, as helloproj.exe, expecting something more like
helloworld.exe. Just plain odd, but I can live with it.

From my view point the manual is badly out of date. It needs something
a lot better for beginners than kitchen. Try HelloWorld.

At this point, I may need only one more bit of info. How does one create
a library and use it? It would be good if the steps were fully described
in the manual.

I'm sure there's more to learn.

Your turn.

[dpb]

On 10/15/2011 10:56 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
...

> Maybe you find fbooks.hlp useful, but at this stage, as a beginner to
> Watcom, I do not. I'm no stranger to compilers and languages.

No offense intended, but surely doesn't seem that way...

>> Looking at the IDE tutorial, the "Kitchen" file referred to is a _NEW_
>> filename for the project you're going to create as you work through the
>> tutorial; look at the title of Figure 2, "Creating a new project". So,
>> there should _not_ be an existing file of that name.
> OK, let's look. From page 15 above figure 2.
> ======================
> When asked for a project name, you can do one of two things:
> 1. enter the following pathname:
> d:[path]\SAMPLES\IDE\FORTRAN\target\KITCHEN
> where d:[path] is the drive and path where you installed the Open Watcom
> software, or
> 2. use the file browser to select the following directory:
> d:[path]\SAMPLES\IDE\FORTRAN\target
> and specify the filename kitchen.
> Figure 2. Creating a new project
> Press the ...
> ==================
> I'm using the IDE. 32-bit XP.
> The path after ...\FORTRAN\ does not exist. ...\FORTRAN\target does not
> exist. Why? What am I missing?

Actually _READING_ what the tutorial says, apparently.

It says identically (by cut and paste), that "the target that we refer
to below should be one of WIN, WIN386, WIN32, or OS2 depending on your
selection."

It does _NOT_ say there should be a "TARGET" subdirectory but that you
should select one of the list of WIN|WIN386|WIN32|OS2 as the target
depending on the _target_ OS you're intending to build an executable for.

>
> "Specify filename kitchen." How does one do that?

One does what one normally does when presented a file GUI for a new
file; one types what one wants into it. In this case, the tutorial
suggests you type "KITCHEN"

Here's what I do.
> Figure 2 is of no help. When I use New Project, I get an Open dialog
> with noname.exe the entry area. Instead I type something like
> myproj.exe, and click the Open button. That gets me to a window that
> shows myproj.exe in the title. The manual is off already.

No, you didn't follow instructions that are about as clear as I think
they could be made to be. You're not actually taking the time to read
or at least comprehend what you've read, sorry, not the
instructions/tutorial/documentation is wrong nor out of date.

...

> Figure 2. What is it referring to? I see it's drilled down to Win32.
> What does it have to do with Kitchen or project names?

It's the direct screen copy of the ui in the target directory in which
the tutorial just above got through saying they were going to
use--namely WIN32. And again, copied and pasted from the doc's on the
same page, following sentence: "The tutorial uses the WIN32 example for
illustrative purposes." Hence it's not terribly surprising that's the
directory for which the screenshot is shown.

What it has to do w/ KITCHEN is that when you type in "KITCHEN" as
requested, that's where the .wpj project will be created. If you want
to put it somewhere else, that's fine; that's just what the tutorial
uses as the convention is to put stuff in the target OS subdirectory of
the the language (FORTRAN) samples.

>
> I'll stop here on the manual discussion.

I'd suggest you go back and reread it and actually look at what it says
before you criticize further.

Once you follow the above step, the remainder works just fine, again as
described.

> To create and understand what's going on, several days ago I wrote the
> classic Hello, World program. This should be in any introductory
> material when someone is learning a language or understanding how a
> compiler works.

Well, the Watcom people chose a somewhat more complex illustration to be
able to demonstrate more stuff in one shot.

> At first, I got nowhere until I realized that I needed to use the Open
> button as above.

Well, I don't know why that should have been that hard to discern since
the tutorial just led you through the step(s). Again, I'm having a hard
time to find a reason to fault the tutorial here, sorry.

Next I discovered the Source menu item actually allows
> me to select my helloworld.for program I created with an editor.
>
> Now what? Let's make a target. Have fun finding what that means from the
> manual. I finally figured it out.

Again, if you had followed the tutorial, it would have led you through
the process.

> From my view point the manual is badly out of date. It needs something
> a lot better for beginners than kitchen. Try HelloWorld.

I categorically disagree on the "out of date" description. Whether
there should be a different target as well is a matter of taste.

There is, in addition to the tutorial, the "IDE.HLP" help file that
discusses all the menus and options plus how to customize the IDE and
interact w/ the other utilities, etc., etc., etc. It's the
documentation on the IDE, not the tutorial, anyway. I presume it is the
same content as the .pdf manuals but am not going to take the time
presently to verify. The short tutorial there is based on C but notes
that if one simply uses Fortran names and writes a sample program in
Fortran instead, one can follow along w/ minimal changes. It builds an
executable from actually typing in a new source file as opposed to the
more complex KITCHEN example. Perhaps that would be more to your taste.

As noted earlier I've not done a full installation since having to
rebuild this system (and it's unlikely I will any time _real_soon_now_
(tm) as I don't use Watcom actively any more; I just try to help where I
can here) but I also presume that when the environment variables are
properly set after an installation that will come up under the Help menu
when in the IDE (I know it did under Watcom 11.6; no reason to suspect
anything different in OW).

>
> At this point, I may need only one more bit of info. How does one create
> a library and use it? It would be good if the steps were fully described
> in the manual.

In the Help files--all that's need in the IDE is to select "LIB" for the
proper image and OS and the switches will be set automagically to build
the library. When you create a new project as above, the next screen
will present you w/ the choices of OS and image type from which to
select--all you do is pick what you want from the screen.

To use a library is simply to refer to it in the target as a dependency
as is demonstrated in the tutorial for the resources used there :)
(which, obviously, that such additional items are used in the project is
as noted earlier, a reason for making the "KITCHEN" project the tutorial
because it does have more than just a single-file .exe to show how the
other pieces are handled.

>
> I'm sure there's more to learn.
>
> Your turn.

...

See above and go back to the documentation and be a little more thorough
in using it--it does explain all these things.

--

[dpb]

On 10/15/2011 10:56 AM, W. eWatson wrote:

> On 10/7/2011 10:45 AM, dpb wrote:

...

Just a few other tidbits to comment on...

> Maybe you find fbooks.hlp useful, but at this stage, as a beginner to

> Watcom, I do not. ...

Well, I pointed out in other response there's an IDE.HLP file that has
answers to most if not all of your specific questions re: the IDE. The
link to that file is in the F77 Help Bookshelf file as a convenience
(along w/ those for all the other utilities, editors, LRM, etc., etc.,
etc., ...) That would seem _a_useful_thing_ (tm) in general to have.

> me to select my helloworld.for program I created with an editor.
>
> Now what? Let's make a target. Have fun finding what that means from the
> manual. I finally figured it out.

This question is in the above (or one would presume one would get the
point after following the details of the tutorial :) )...but that's a
rehash of what said previously so I'll quit there.

> I'll spare you the details. I eventually got through targets, makes, and
> execute the program, as helloproj.exe, expecting something more like
> helloworld.exe. Just plain odd, but I can live with it.

How so is that? You must have used HELLOPROJ as the name of the target;
OW is somehow supposed to magically change the result of that to
something else on a whim? There could be thousands of source files in a
project; why should it choose one of those and rename the project into
something other than the name you gave it when you created it? To do so
would be, simply, rude behavior to not respect the wishes of the user.

I've not doubt the MS Visual Studio project generator wouldn't to it
much differently altho I've not used it "in anger", either. (Like Lynn,
I'm an old fogey and use the command line compiler/linker w/ make files
and a favorite programmers' editor rather than any IDE regardless of
which compiler I use at the time).

>
> From my view point the manual is badly out of date. It needs something
> a lot better for beginners than kitchen. Try HelloWorld.

The complexity of the project is essentially immaterial to the IDE;
that's the point of the IDE (altho I think they tend to get in the way
or don't add enough that I can't do already w/ the toolset I'm more
familiar with, many seem to think the glitter is necessary).

_IF_ you would simply follow the instructions of the tutorial as written
instead of trying to make up stuff as you go, you would come out on the
other end with a project that demonstrates far more than just a
single-file executable (but NB the previous note of the example in the
IDE Help file) but that part is in there as well.

--

[dpb]

On 10/15/2011 1:22 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 10/15/2011 10:56 AM, W. eWatson wrote:

> ....
...

>> From my view point the manual is badly out of date. It needs something
>> a lot better for beginners than kitchen. Try HelloWorld.
>
> I categorically disagree on the "out of date" description. Whether there
> should be a different target as well is a matter of taste.

...

OK, I went back again to see if I could determine what is so offputting
to you...

Hmmmmm....ok, I'll grant the graphics are still based on early Windoes
so there's some dated appearance. It hadn't registered in my going
through it; it's a detail of the sort that one figures any experienced
computer user deals with all the time of changing versions of programs
and the OS.

The suggestion I have is twofold--

First, read the _CONTENT_ of the instructions in the tutorial for its
meaning rather than simply looking for a series of buttons to push.
Then you should be able to get the fundamentals of the operation of the
IDE independent of the version of the OS.

Second, there's a pretty easy area for a new user to add to the
OpenWatcom community--you see as an outside/new user things that are
basically overlooked or deemed insignificant here. I had never used the
IDE nor looked at the tutorial even having used the Watcom compilers for
commercially supported projects since almost their inception so I saw it
as essentially a new user, too. Given that background, the tutorial
seemed perfectly clear to me and I built the KITCHEN project on first
pass in about 2 minutes on an XP system. The format of the UI didn't
enter into it; I was looking at _what_ to do, not just the minute
details of the UI. So, here would be a perfect opportunity to take a
few minutes and make some new graphics to replace the existing ones and
either replace them in the existing files for an update or at least
provide them as patches for the next release that they can be
incorporated. I'm presuming altho I've not looked, that the same
figures are in the C/C++ IDE tutorial in the parallel documentation so
it wouldn't be much of a stretch for those to be updated as well.

--

[W. eWatson]

Let me really simplify all this.

1. I am able to write, compile, and execute a program.
2. I think an example simply using Hello World would be useful to
getting "beginners" started.
3. Tell me by example how to build and use a library.
4. If the latter cannot be done, I can still proceed to use OW for the
two 800 lines of programs I plan to use it for. If I should find
otherwise, then I will take up f77 via Cygwin.

[dpb]

In the IDE, create a new project and when you click the "Open" button in
the "Enter project filename" screen after entering the desired project
file (the .wpj file that's the bookkeeping entity for the DIE) the "New
target" window will automagically open. In it there are buttons to pick
the target environment you're building for and a list of possible image
types on the right. Select the combination of your choice and done.
Note the "New target" is the actual .exe, .lib, .dll, etc., that the
makefile built by the IDE will use for the
compiler/linker/librarian/whatever so there is where the desired name
for that should be entered, _not_ in the project name (altho afaik they
can be the same since will have different extensions). That's all
there is to it (again, it's all in the Help/Tutorial :) ).

I simply use the compiler/librarian individually.

If I had a file

fortlib.for

and were to build a static-link library for it, the commands would look
something like

wf386 /FP6 /6 /OX /Qui fortlib.for
wlib fortlib +fortlib

and be done w/ it.

You'll want to look at either the manual, the help files or execute the
-? command at a prompt to see the default compiler switches to see how
those match up w/ your system/wants/needs.

I'll (yet again) point out that the F77 Bookshelf Help file has a
reference link to every one of these in it w/ helpful longish titles to
identify them from other than the help files themselves. If you have
any intent whatsoever of doing anything w/ the OpenWatcom toolset
(which, btw, is quite a nice compiler albeit limited to F77+extensions)
you'll be well served to use it.

If, for any reason, you choose to not use OWatcom, I'd _strongly_
suggest either G95 or GFortran over F77 even for legacy code or the
Silverfrost personal version. There's really no reason whatsoever to
not use a current compiler with the more recent versions of the Standard
available unless one has some extremely arcane code that was written
expressly for a given compiler (in which case, any other compiler than
that one is likely to be a hassle so if one's going to deal with that
kind of grief one may as well get the advantages of recent tools in the
process).

The above isn't in any way to disparage the OpenWatcom compiler but it
is, after all, like all other F77 compilers, bound by a Standard that is
now 30+ years out of date. Given that, it's not terribly surprising to
find some of the documentation is dated (even though as previously noted
it's not wrong).

--

[dpb]

On 10/16/2011 1:31 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 11:02 AM, W. eWatson wrote:
>> Let me really simplify all this.
>>
>> 1. I am able to write, compile, and execute a program.
>> 2. I think an example simply using Hello World would be useful to
>> getting "beginners" started.
>> 3. Tell me by example how to build and use a library.
>> 4. If the latter cannot be done, I can still proceed to use OW for the
>> two 800 lines of programs I plan to use it for. If I should find
>> otherwise, then I will take up f77 via Cygwin.
>>
>>
>
> In the IDE, create a new project and when you click the "Open" button in
> the "Enter project filename" screen after entering the desired project
> file (the .wpj file that's the bookkeeping entity for the DIE) the "New
> target" window will automagically open. In it there are buttons to pick
> the target environment you're building for and a list of possible image
> types on the right. Select the combination of your choice and done. Note
> the "New target" is the actual .exe, .lib, .dll, etc., that the makefile
> built by the IDE will use for the compiler/linker/librarian/whatever so
> there is where the desired name for that should be entered, _not_ in the
> project name (altho afaik they can be the same since will have different
> extensions). That's all there is to it (again, it's all in the
> Help/Tutorial :) ).

...

OBTW, to include the library in a target see the section "Including
Libraries in a Target" in the IDE help file (again, there's a pointer to
it in the Bookshelf file).

--

[user1]

On 10/16/2011 12:02 PM, W. eWatson wrote:

> 4. If the latter cannot be done, I can still proceed to use OW for the
> two 800 lines of programs I plan to use it for. If I should find
> otherwise, then I will take up f77 via Cygwin.
>
>

Huh? Do you really think it will be simpler to use Cygwin?

[W. eWatson]

Good. Thanks. I should be able to try it tomorrow.

[Kulin Remailer]

Good question. gcc is pure shit. Having to install cygwin to run gnu shit on
Windows is adding insult to injury. Are there no good free FORTRAN compilers
for native Windows?
>

[dpb]

On 10/17/2011 8:29 AM, Kulin Remailer wrote:
...

> ... Are there no good free FORTRAN compilers
> for native Windows?

...

<http://www.silverfrost.com/default.aspx>

I've not done so, but many at comp.lang.fortran seem happy enough w/
gfortran. My understanding is there are packaged binary downloads.

Intel, unfortunately, hasn't released the Windows version for free
personal use as they have the *nix side.

--

[Fritz Wuehler]

> Intel, unfortunately, hasn't released the Windows version for free
> personal use as they have the *nix side.

I noticed that and it is surprising. Maybe some of the FORTRAN heavyweights
on comp.lang.fortran should ask the Intel guy who hangs out there why
not. He seems like a good guy and an advocate for FORTRAN as well.

[dpb]

I think it's purely marketing/revenue/Windows user base driven.

The perceived number of Windows downloads that would abuse the privilege
(imo) is considered sufficient that Intel doesn't think it's in their
best business interest.

Steve L hasn't said so directly (and I doubt that he would touch the
question) but it's what I've inferred from what has been said over the
years.

--

[user1]

I have been happy with the mingw (native windows) versions of
gcc/gfortran, in particular the versions packaged by the
www.equation.com people. Of course, it is all command line stuff, not
packaged with an IDE of any sort.

If you do not like gnu compilers, I'm sure you will not like this either.

[user1]

Virtual machines. We are at a point these days where it is quite easy to
install linux under VMware, VirtualBox, etc. running on a Windows host.
You can then use Intel, Sun, or any other compilers that are available
for linux to build your number crunching fortran apps. I actually prefer
linux under VirtualBox to Cygwin.

[Nomen Nescio]

> Virtual machines. We are at a point these days where it is quite easy to
> install linux under VMware, VirtualBox, etc. running on a Windows host.
> You can then use Intel, Sun, or any other compilers that are available
> for linux to build your number crunching fortran apps. I actually prefer
> linux under VirtualBox to Cygwin.

That's a good point but I think most Windows victims are still uncomfortable
or unable to use Linux and command line tools are totally foreign to
them. Virtual machines solve the problem of multibooting and losing your
Windows installation but people still have to learn a new OS. For most
people doing all that just to get a good compiler isn't worth it.

[dpb]

On 10/18/2011 7:48 AM, user1 wrote:
...

> Virtual machines. We are at a point these days where it is quite easy to
> install linux under VMware, VirtualBox, etc. running on a Windows host.
> You can then use Intel, Sun, or any other compilers that are available
> for linux to build your number crunching fortran apps. I actually prefer
> linux under VirtualBox to Cygwin.

Yes, I think (again, this is all just inferred) Intel is entirely
comfortable w/ the numbers that have that level of expertise; the casual
drive-by is what I believe they see as being a lot of copies for no
potential gain other than increased handholding traffic on the support site.

I've thought of it, but have been retired long enough now that I've not
written any code "in anger" for 10+ yrs now and it's been nearly that
long since the last minor updates/support work on the plant performance
monitor (that was converted to NT from OS/2 Watcom w/ the Compigital (
:) ) Visual Compiler and what little home playing I do I still use it
and don't expect to change at this point since it's become a vanishingly
small probability that anybody is going to call w/ an offer (at least
one I can't refuse :) ) since virtually every one of my old contacts are
now also retired or the few remaining interested/involved in other things.

--

[W. eWatson]

Where does one obtain these compilers? What is the cost? "personal"
sounds like, if there is a cost, but with some limited product.

When we successfully get this code working, then it will likely be
recoded into Java or C++.

> available unless one has some extremely arcane code that was written
> expressly for a given compiler (in which case, any other compiler than
> that one is likely to be a hassle so if one's going to deal with that
> kind of grief one may as well get the advantages of recent tools in the
> process).

I'll say that it is at least old. Nevertheless, more recent tools are
desirable. However, this is a one time use. Verification of the code is
important against known input and output is available.

[W. eWatson]

No problem. It can be done in Linux.