Looking for a real Fortran-66 compatible PC compiler (CP/M or DOS or Windows, doesn't matter)
Peter Dassow
I have to compile some very old Fortran-66 programs, but I do not have
an IBM host or a TOPS-10/VMS machine.
So I am looking for a real compatible compiler for these old sources,
Fortran-80 (CP/M) is one of the candidates, but there are problems with
the data types. Are there any other PC compatible Fortran-66 compilers
out there ?
Regards
Peter
Peter Flass
What do you want to do? Do you need to generate PC code, or just run on
a PC? There are PC-based emulators for IBM 360/370, VAX/VMS, and
TOPS-10. I know at least the IBM and DEC-10 emulators have FORTRAN
compilers, and I expect the VAX does also.
Peter Dassow
Peter,
I want to give them as .EXE / .COM away, so others without an emulator
can run these executables also.
Also, an emulator runs only perfect if you have the OS also installed,
VMS should be difficult (it must be licen$ed and the license is time
limited).
Regards
Peter
Dave Wade
"Peter Dassow" <z8...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:4d175df4$0$6888$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
The IBM really old IBM Operating systems are all copywrite free and you can
bundle up a Hercules that will run batch jobs, but I agree its over kill for
a few Fortran programs. The oldest compiler I know of that available for
download that runs on a PC is FTN-77 from here:-
http://www.silverfrost.com/53/ftn77/ftn77_dbos_history.aspx
but its really strict. I actually found that Open Watcom was a better bet
and has compiled most of the Fortran-66 without too many issues...
http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main_Page
>
> Regards
> Peter
Dave
G4UGM
Peter Dassow
>
> I actually found that Open Watcom was a better
> bet and has compiled most of the Fortran-66 without too many issues...
>
> http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main_Page
>
Watcom is really "fat" (~50MB) and the documentation is an endless PDF
file collection also. At the moment I am a bit concerned about such a
flood of files (compiler and docs).
Regards
Peter
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
"Dave Wade" <dave....@gmail.com> writes:
> The IBM really old IBM Operating systems are all copywrite free and
> you can bundle up a Hercules that will run batch jobs, but I agree its
> over kill for a few Fortran programs. The oldest compiler I know of
> that available for download that runs on a PC is FTN-77 from here:-
>
> http://www.silverfrost.com/53/ftn77/ftn77_dbos_history.aspx
>
> but its really strict. I actually found that Open Watcom was a better
> bet and has compiled most of the Fortran-66 without too many issues...
>
> http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main_Page
aka ... the company was somewhat forced into unbundling announced
23jun69 ... and starting to charge for (application) software (among
other things); however the company did managed to make the case that
kernel software should still be free. misc. past posts mentioning
23jun69 unbundling & starting to charge for software
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundle
the company then started the Future System effort, somewhat motivated by
clone controllers ... but it failed w/o even being announced. During
Future System ... much of the other activity was killed off ... allowing
the 370 hardware&software product pipelines to go dry ... then when
Future System was killed ... there was made rush to get stuff back into
the 370 hardware&software product pipeline. recent post mentioning
Future System
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010q.html#33 IBM Future System
shutting down 370 "competition" for FS and then having a dry 370
(hardware) product pipeline (when FS was killed) is credited with clone
processors getting a foothold in the market.
Rushing to get stuff back into the 370 product pipeline ... and facing
the clone processors is possible motivation for the transition to
starting to (also) charge/license kernel software (as well as the
transition to object-code-only).
above Future System post also references these web page:
http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/fs.html
and
http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm
as well as other past posts mentioning FS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010q.html#32
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
William Hamblen
How well goes gnu fortran77 work? You might be able to link with mingw32
to get a Microsoft Windows executible.
Bud
Tim Shoppa
Fortran 66 wasn't especially portable as usually written. You may have
to hack some of the source code up anyway. Why not just port it over
to 77? This is sort of stuff a Fortran programmer does over a lunch
break (e.g. not a big deal.)
Tim.
Peter Dassow
>
> Fortran 66 wasn't especially portable as usually written. You may have
> to hack some of the source code up anyway. Why not just port it over
> to 77? This is sort of stuff a Fortran programmer does over a lunch
> break (e.g. not a big deal.)
>
I have a collection of links already published at
http://www.z80.eu/for-compiler.html
but this was more CP/M centric ;-)
Regards
Peter
Tim Shoppa
> On 26.12.2010 22:48, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>
> > Fortran 66 wasn't especially portable as usually written. You may have
> > to hack some of the source code up anyway. Why not just port it over
> > to 77? This is sort of stuff a Fortran programmer does over a lunch
> > break (e.g. not a big deal.)
>
> Yes, meanwhile that's what I thought also.
> but this was more CP/M centric ;-)
IMHO:
Writing portable Fortran, is far easier than writing portable C.
That doesn't mean it's often done :-)
Most CP/M machines will be "too small" to run any but the most trivial
Fortran applications anyway. The threaded code PDP-11 compilers could
let you do interesting stuff in 64K (especially with overlays - wow,
overlays were so important in that memory model) but I never saw any
x80 compilers do anything nearly so usable.
Gnu fortran77, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, takes an
interesting tack: AFAIK it doesn't support anybody's F77 extensions.
Having grown up in a world defined by F77 extensions (especially VAX/
PDP-11 and DOD extensions) this was a cultural shock when I first saw
it, but I now appreciate Gnu fortran77's stoicness as a way of
enhancing portability.
Tim.
H Vlems
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
A (free, hobbyist) VMS license obtained thru the Montagar program
lasts a year.
All you need is an Encompass associate membership, which is free as
well.
If you need media then ask on c.o.v. and a kind soul will help you.
Hans
Peter Flass
jmfbahciv
What CPU do you want this to run on? an old compiler would generate
286 machine instructions?
/BAH
Tim Shoppa
>
> > Fortran 66 wasn't especially portable as usually written. You may have
> > to hack some of the source code up anyway. Why not just port it over
> > to 77? This is sort of stuff a Fortran programmer does over a lunch
> > break (e.g. not a big deal.)
>
> Yes, meanwhile that's what I thought also.
> but this was more CP/M centric ;-)
Peter -
I originally the thread was about crufty old Fortran 66 code, but
now I see that you are bringing in
crufty old CP/M platform Fortran 77 compilers too :-).
Most generically you will be more productive dealing with crufty
code, than with crufty compilers.
IMHO the compilers you name were crufty even when they were brand
new :-). Nothing against the attempt to put Fortran on an 8-bit micro,
just that from my 2010 perspective they missed the mark every time.
Tim.
Dave Wade
"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004986...@aca210e1.ipt.aol.com...
Both WATCOM and FTN77 generate 286 instructions but the code runs fine on
XP. I haven't tried on Windows/7 or 64 bit OS...
> /BAH
Charles Richmond
> On Dec 26, 4:53 pm, Peter Dassow<z8...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> On 26.12.2010 22:48, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>>
>>> Fortran 66 wasn't especially portable as usually written. You may have
>>> to hack some of the source code up anyway. Why not just port it over
>>> to 77? This is sort of stuff a Fortran programmer does over a lunch
>>> break (e.g. not a big deal.)
>>
>> Yes, meanwhile that's what I thought also.
>> I have a collection of links already published athttp://www.z80.eu/for-compiler.html
>> but this was more CP/M centric ;-)
>
> IMHO:
>
> Writing portable Fortran, is far easier than writing portable C.
>
I can only compare the porting of FORTRAN/66 or FORTRAN IV code to
porting programs written in C. In this comparison, ISTM that C is
much more portable. Perhaps FORTRAN 77 or later *is* more portable...
FORTRAN/66 and FORTRAN IV have *no* standard way to handle
character data in variables. This led to many non-portable
"tricks" to store character data.
--
+----------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond |
| |
| plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com |
+----------------------------------------+
Charles Richmond
Just out of curiosity, what are these FORTRAN/66 programs doing
that is important enough to warrant compiling on a PC???
Dave Wade
"Charles Richmond" <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ifboth$d3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 12/26/10 7:08 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 4:53 pm, Peter Dassow<z8...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>> On 26.12.2010 22:48, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fortran 66 wasn't especially portable as usually written. You may have
>>>> to hack some of the source code up anyway. Why not just port it over
>>>> to 77? This is sort of stuff a Fortran programmer does over a lunch
>>>> break (e.g. not a big deal.)
>>>
>>> Yes, meanwhile that's what I thought also.
>>> I have a collection of links already published
>>> athttp://www.z80.eu/for-compiler.html
>>> but this was more CP/M centric ;-)
>>
>> IMHO:
>>
>> Writing portable Fortran, is far easier than writing portable C.
>>
>
> I can only compare the porting of FORTRAN/66 or FORTRAN IV code to porting
> programs written in C. In this comparison, ISTM that C is much more
> portable. Perhaps FORTRAN 77 or later *is* more portable...
>
> FORTRAN/66 and FORTRAN IV have *no* standard way to handle character data
> in variables. This led to many non-portable "tricks" to store character
> data.
>
Fortran 77 has proper charter data. I spent about 10 years working on a file
transfer and job management package. The Salford Portable Communications
Package (SPCP) (any one still got a copy) was written in Fortran 77 because
at the time there were many machines without a "C" compiler. However the
code posed many challenges as there is no dynamic memory management in
Fortran 77. The solution was to use a couple of large arrays, one of
integers and one of characters. Among other things the integer array was
used to manage the entires in the character variables. The data in the
character variables was "structured" by use of contestants that delimited
the substrings. However this did require the use of the INCLUDE statement
which was an extension. I think we had a macro processor that could be used
if we met a compiler without INCLUDE...
>
> --
> +----------------------------------------+
> | Charles and Francis Richmond |
> | |
> | plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com |
> +----------------------------------------+
Dave
G4UGM
jmfbahciv
> On 12/26/10 7:08 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 4:53 pm, Peter Dassow<z8...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>> On 26.12.2010 22:48, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fortran 66 wasn't especially portable as usually written. You may have
>>>> to hack some of the source code up anyway. Why not just port it over
>>>> to 77? This is sort of stuff a Fortran programmer does over a lunch
>>>> break (e.g. not a big deal.)
>>>
>>> Yes, meanwhile that's what I thought also.
>>> I have a collection of links already published
athttp://www.z80.eu/for-compiler.html
>>> but this was more CP/M centric ;-)
>>
>> IMHO:
>>
>> Writing portable Fortran, is far easier than writing portable C.
>>
>
> I can only compare the porting of FORTRAN/66 or FORTRAN IV code to
> porting programs written in C. In this comparison, ISTM that C is
> much more portable. Perhaps FORTRAN 77 or later *is* more portable...
>
> FORTRAN/66 and FORTRAN IV have *no* standard way to handle
> character data in variables.
That's because characters weren't considered data back then.
> This led to many non-portable
> "tricks" to store character data.
>
>
Which should work, albeit slowerly.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
If the code had been running on a PDP-10, I'd have suggested using
the switch which causes the compiler to revert to an old standard.
However, I don't know if any of those PC compilers ever bothered
to support backwards compatible FORTRAN code.
/BAH
Dave Wade
"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004987...@aca2ecfe.ipt.aol.com...
FTN77 isn't a "PC Compiler" its a Portable Fortran 77 Compiler that has been
ported to the PC environment. It started out life as a Fortran 77 compiler
for ICL 1900. ICL had refused to develop a Fortran 77 compiler for the 1900
Series and tried to get Universities to switch to 2900 series. When Salford
University "jumped ship" and switched from ICL1900 to PR1MOS, the PR1ME
machines they bought were benchmarked using the PR1ME Fortran 66 compiler as
the Fortran 77 compiler wasn't available when the machines were ordered.
When the PR1ME Fortran 77 compiler finally appeared its performance was dire
,and so FTN was ported to PR1MOS. Later as PCs became widely used within the
University an MS-DOS port was also produced, For many years the compilers
were formally ANSI certified but these days this doesn't happen for cost
reasons. Logically the compiler supports some extensions to allow Fortran 66
code to compile, refer to the user guide for details.
http://www.silverfrost.com/53/ftn77/ftn77_dbos_history.aspx
In a similar manner the Open WATCOM compilers are descended from earlier
mainframe tools, but in this case the lineage is not so clearly traceable.
Looking at the source code for V1.2 of OpenWatcom remnants of the IBM/360
code generation were still present but I never managed to get it to emit
"Mainframe" code. I note that it also supports Hollerith constants for
Fortran 66 compatability, but could not find the other options.
> /BAH
Dave
G4UGM
Peter Dassow
>> I have to compile some very old Fortran-66 programs, but I do not
>> have an IBM host or a TOPS-10/VMS machine.
>>
>
> important enough to warrant compiling on a PC???
>
only a sinus which calms down to zero ;-)
Regards
Peter
Peter Flass
remember it.
>
> /BAH
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
The IBM Fortran compiler for the PC (from 1982) has some support for
Fortran 66 compatability, but I don't know how much.
--
ArarghMail012 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
Charles Richmond
Yes, I used and liked FORTRAN 77. I just *never* had to port any
of the FORTRAN 77 code. At a PPoE that was a defense contractor,
we had to rehost some simulations on a Harris 800/1200 from a CDC
6600. These were what might be termed "legacy" FORTRAN code... in
FORTRAN/66 or FORTRAN IV.
Rich Alderson
> Hi,
> I have to compile some very old Fortran-66 programs, but I do not have
> an IBM host or a TOPS-10/VMS machine.
I was going to point out that Tops-10, TOPS-20, and VMS accounts are available
for free at Living Computer Museum, but having read the entire thread to this
point before responding, I see that that will not solve your issue.
--
Rich Alderson ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
Peter Flass
The comments about FORTRAN portability are interesting. ISTR before
"C", most programs intended to be portable were written in FORTRAN as
the mos standard and widely-used language.
jmfbahciv
Do you know any physicists?
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> Peter Dassow <z8...@arcor.de> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>
>> I have to compile some very old Fortran-66 programs, but I do not have
>> an IBM host or a TOPS-10/VMS machine.
>
> I was going to point out that Tops-10, TOPS-20, and VMS accounts are
available
> for free at Living Computer Museum, but having read the entire thread to
this
> point before responding, I see that that will not solve your issue.
>
He could try to compile the code with a /[can't remember exact spelling]
FORTRAN66 switch. Well, I just found a FORTRAN manual and it doesn't
mention this switch. drat.
I was going to say to compile the code on a -10 of any flavor just
to see what kinds of problems the code will have. There is a compiler
/SYNTAX switch which won't output any rel code but do a syntax only
check of the FOR code.
If he could generate a PDP-10 exe, is it possible to do a conversion
of PDP-10 instructions to 286 instructions?
Monitor interface code would be later project. But at least he
could find out how much of the FORTRAN code is incompatible with
/F77.
/BAH
Bill Leary
news:iffd37$hrc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The comments about FORTRAN portability are interesting. ISTR before "C",
> most programs intended to be portable were written in FORTRAN as the mos
> standard and widely-used language.
This was my experience.
The problem was that, for business applications, which is mostly what I did,
there was a different way to handle character data for each implementation.
Well, not literally of course, but it sure seemed like it every time I had
to port something.
- Bill
sidd
>>
> These programs calculate the attenuation of an oscillation, and it's
not
> only a sinus which calms down to zero ;-)
i take it that you are solving a differential equation ?
A Runge-Kutta by any chance ?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > Just out of curiosity, what are these FORTRAN/66 programs doing that is
> > important enough to warrant compiling on a PC???
>
> These programs calculate the attenuation of an oscillation, and it's not
> only a sinus which calms down to zero ;-)
If there isn't a great deal of code involved, it may be easier to
rewrite the programs into a modern Fortran that can be more easily
compiled to create .EXE files. The rewrite effort might be easier
than trying to find a usable compiler and making it work. I wonder
how much code there is overall, and how much of it is specific to
Fortran/66 and not compatible with later versions. I am in no way a
physicist, but I wonder if such a program is mostly some DO LOOPs with
a bunch of calculation statements.
If the overall code is relatively small, it might be easier to get a
QuickBasic (or BASIC PDS) compiler and rewrite the code for them. As
a last resort, you could use your QBASIC interpreter which should
still be part of your Windows CD, and just send that out with the
code.
I presume the program runs in batch mode. How would the I/O be--
specifying the input and output files for a PC?