gfortran vs g95

[zzp]

I'm a newbie to Fortran and have been using GFortran for months. I'm
considering switching to g95. Well there shoudn't be a 'switch' between
compilers but with Fortran there is, because neither open source
compilers have implemented the full range of standard features yet.

Two nicer things I noticed of g95 over gfortran are

1) vector arithmetic in array subscripts
2) more meaningful warning messages, e.g., "there's an implicit
conversion here -- you may lose precision."

Any comments on the comparison between g95 and gfortran, or a pointer
to such articles? Thanks.

[beli...@aol.com]

G95 implements the entire Fortran 95 language. Gfortran does not yet do
so -- there are gaps. I strongly recommend using g95. You can use
gfortran as a backup.

[stevenb]

What are you talking about, of course gfortran does implement the
entire F95 language.

[beli...@aol.com]

>What are you talking about, of course gfortran does implement the
>entire F95 language.

I have trouble getting many of my standard-conforming codes, which run
with
g95, LF95, CVF, and IVF, to run with gfortran. I do submit bug reports
to gfortran.

Fortran authority Richard Maine wrote as follows in comp.lang.fortran
on Jan 18 2006:

"While I haven't tried Numerical Recipes, my general experience has
been
that g95 (<http://www.g95.org>) compiles substantially more of my codes

than gfortran does.

The last few time I tried, gfortran couldn't compile anything on my Mac

at work apparently because of some missing library. I confess I didn't
take the time to track the problem down properly, and I'll grant it
might be just some quirk of my particular sytem configuration. But even

when I did have a working installation of gfortran on my Mac, it lagged

seriously behind g95 in terms of compiling my codes. (And no, I do not
consider the probleems to have been in arcane areas of F90).

Gfortran does seem to be improving, but if you are having problems with

it, g95 is another option. Some people confuse g95 and gfortran because

of their related roots, but they are not the same compiler. "

[gsal]

Yeah, any comments?

I am starting to do Fortran on the PC and looked at both gfortran and
g95...ended up decided for g95, it seemed to me that there was more of
a forum around g95 and more development activity, as well.

[Joost]

Steven,

It is good to see that gfortran is improving, but it still seems
unlikely to me that a large F95 code can be compiled out of the box
with a recent gfortran (I would be happy to see CP2K compiled with
gfortran for example).

Cheers,

Joost

[Doug]

beli...@aol.com wrote:

> "Some people confuse g95 and gfortran because
> of their related roots, but they are not the same compiler. "

This has been a problem on Mac OS X Tiger because the gfortran package
was being distributed with "g95" in the package name! I am pleased to
see this has been fixed in the latest release of that package.

Doug

[Mohammad]

I heared gfortran is part of gcc but g95 is not? This of course may
cause problem for experienced developer who need to use the GNU
compiler collection. But the question is does g95 integrate into gcc in
the future?

Cheers

[Doug]

It will likely be updated as newer versions of gcc become stable.

Doug