Re: Something on CVF 6.6C

From: Tim Prince (tprince_at_computer.org)
Date: 02/14/04 

Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:15:58 GMT

"Gary L. Scott" <garyscott@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:402E397E.3D87C209@ev1.net...
> Richard Maine wrote:
> >
> > "Gary L. Scott" <garyscott@ev1.net> writes:
> >
> > [on Intel Fortran for Windows requiring puchase of MS C++]
> >
> > > You have to buy MS Visual C++ separately if you want the IDE and
runtime
> > > (i.e. an "integrated product").
> >
> > I was quite certain that I recalled that you had to buy it if you
> > wanted a product that worked at all, "integrated" or not. As in,
> > I think you needed it for the linker or some such thing.
>
> I can't even think of words that would describe the depth of my negative
> feelings relative to such a product that claims to be a successor to
> CVF.
It was largely Microsoft's decision not to agree to a continuation of CVF
style packaging.
> . I'm also amazed that the
> other vendors jumped right on the .net bandwagon and have full working
> products available, capable of both native and MSIL code generation,
> while Intel keeps saying that there is no market for MSIL.
Intel didn't say there's no market for IL. There are continuing efforts to
improve its performance, but I don't know of any success with MP. Maybe you
meant insufficient market for yet another Fortran compiler to generate MSIL,
and insufficient market for MSIL to run on linux, or with OpenMP or MPI. As
I understand it, the compilers to which you refer supporting debugging and
profiling of MSIL, but not native code. I don't believe those vendors
support a C or C++ compiler either. I do have an old Lahey C compiler, but
I've never heard of anyone considering it as serious competition to the
popular C++ compiler. I see significant product differentiation among the
Fortran vendors. As others have suggested, you are welcome to use more than
one.
>
>
> Support the GNU Fortran G95 Project: http://g95.sourceforge.net

Relevant Pages

  • Re: .Net applications, not optimized for CPU at all?
    ... Both Java VM and MSIL are logically stack machines. ... while the MSIL instructions aren't. ... This implies that all the usual compiler tricks can be applied. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: /clr:pure and unmanaged lib
    ... VCRT linked in, take a look at the assembly manifest generated by the compiler, this manifest contains the assembly's depencies, something like. ... Pure is MSIL only, but the CRT includes an MSIL version of some functions, so the dependency still exists. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc)
  • Re: Is There Any Reason to Even Use VC++ Anymore?
    ... I never did any benchmarks, so I was basing my statement on other reports. ... Sure the C++ compiler can ... > spend some extra time to optimize MSIL, while the C# compiler is more time ... >>> You could almost think of the syntax extensions almost independent of ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc)
  • re:Help !! Server.CreatePlaylist ERRORS !!!!
    ... In this case you have a compiler error, ... The new version comes without a public key, ... 2- Modify the MSIL code with Visual Studio or other editor. ... assembly extern interop_msxml ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsmedia.server)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C
    ... There are at least TWO different usages of Fortran: ... and 2) number crunching applications. ... > meant insufficient market for yet another Fortran compiler to generate MSIL, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)