comp.lang.fortran
By Author

1546 messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

---

Starting: 01/31/04
Ending: 02/29/04

• #Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/03/04)
• --==M=M==--
  • Re: Bug, out of standard or human error? (02/08/04)
  • Re: Bug, out of standard or human error? (02/08/04)
  • How to use heap? (02/07/04)
  • Bug, out of standard or human error? (02/06/04)
• _at_(none)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
• Aidan
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/06/04)
• Albert Herman
  • Re: Need Help with Precision!! (02/14/04)
  • Re: Need Help with Precision!! (02/13/04)
  • Re: Need Help with Precision!! (02/12/04)
• alex
  • Re: Fortran90 and XML DOM (02/19/04)
  • Fortran90 and XML DOM (02/19/04)
  • What is the major difference between Fortran90 and Fortran95? (02/19/04)
  • Re: xml parsers in fortran (02/13/04)
  • xml parsers in fortran (02/11/04)
• Alex Gibson
  • Re: Laptop processor benchmarks: Centrino Pentium M vs Mobile Pentium IV ??? (02/08/04)
• alexander chupeev
  • Re: memory management bug in CVF-6.6.C (02/18/04)
  • CVF6.6C memory leak (02/11/04)
• Alexei Cioina
  • Re: CVF 6.6B - slow calculation speed (02/11/04)
  • CVF 6.6B – slow calculation speed (02/11/04)
  • Re: Fortran and our Managers and reality (02/02/04)
• Alf
  • Re: newbie - dimensioning arrays and loading data in an old program (02/29/04)
• Amy
  • Could somebody help me with LINKING problem? (02/15/04)
• analyst41
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/28/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/27/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/26/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/24/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
• Andrew McLaren
  • Re: Fortran for Mac ? (02/22/04)
• Andrew McLean
  • Intel Fortran 8 for Windows and Matlab mex files [1/1] (02/08/04)
• Andrew Smith
  • Re: fortran compilers -- i've found one that works, are there any others? (02/03/04)
• André Janz
  • Re: Could somebody help me with LINKING problem? (02/16/04)
  • Re: Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (02/12/04)
  • Re: Specifying type of literal integer constants (02/12/04)
  • Re: Specifying type of literal integer constants (02/11/04)
  • Specifying type of literal integer constants (02/11/04)
• Andy Mai
  • Re: What is the major difference between Fortran90 and Fortran95? (02/27/04)
• Andy Nelson
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/03/04)
• Andy Vaught
  • Re: F and G95 (02/02/04)
• anhvt11
  • Re: Converting Fortran module to C++ (02/24/04)
  • Re: Converting Fortran module to C++ (02/24/04)
  • Re: Converting Fortran module to C++ (02/24/04)
• Anton Ishmurzin
  • newbie question fortran analog for #ifdef/#ifndef,conditional compilation possibility (02/05/04)
  • Re: ifc 6.0 - where to get? (02/03/04)
  • Re: ifc 6.0 - where to get? (02/03/04)
  • ifc 6.0 - where to get? (02/02/04)
• Arindam Chakraborty
  • Dynamic "PARAMETER" statement (02/10/04)
• Arjen Markus
  • Re: Q: Summary Argument Passing Convention(s) (02/27/04)
  • Re: Q: Summary Argument Passing Convention(s) (02/27/04)
  • Re: INCLUDE file (02/26/04)
  • Re: Array-valued expression (02/25/04)
  • Re: Fortran90 and XML DOM (02/20/04)
  • Re: Fortran90 and XML DOM (02/19/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/17/04)
  • Re: xml parsers in fortran (02/16/04)
  • Re: xml parsers in fortran (02/12/04)
  • Re: GUI without resource files (02/11/04)
  • Re: Dimensional analysis / units checking and conversion during compilation (02/09/04)
  • Re: Is this standard f90? (02/03/04)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users (02/02/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
• Athanasios Migdalas
  • Re: Fortran advocacy (was Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future) (02/22/04)
• August Derleth
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/16/04)
• B52B_at_pl
  • Re: Do-loop standards conformance (02/23/04)
  • Re: Liscense Manager (02/12/04)
  • Re: CVF 6.6B Q_slow_calculation_speed?= (02/11/04)
  • Re: Salford95 and Lahey-Fujitsu Compiler producing different output with same program (02/05/04)
  • The Data Compression Library (02/03/04)
  • pure - parallel (02/02/04)
• balupari
  • Re: to calculate execution time in Fortran 77 (02/16/04)
  • to calculate execution time in Fortran 77 (02/12/04)
• Bart Vandewoestyne
  • f95 vs. F compilation question (02/25/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/19/04)
  • Re: How to compile this? (02/13/04)
  • Re: How to compile this? (02/13/04)
  • How to compile this? (02/12/04)
• beliavsky_at_aol.com
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/27/04)
  • Re: C++/Fortran mixing (02/27/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/27/04)
  • Re: Copy of DVF/CVF needed (02/27/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/24/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/23/04)
  • Re: Fortran advocacy (was Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future) (02/22/04)
  • timing a program on Windows (02/22/04)
  • Fortran advocacy (was Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future) (02/21/04)
  • appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/21/04)
  • Re: What is the major difference between Fortran90 and Fortran95? (02/20/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (was Re: checking array arguments (was Re: [OT] Funny)) (02/19/04)
  • Re: Simple question about literal constants (02/19/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (was Re: checking array arguments (was Re: [OT] Funny)) (02/19/04)
  • Re: What is the major difference between Fortran90 and Fortran95? (02/19/04)
  • Re: Example multi-precision code (02/19/04)
  • Fortran 2003 and F (02/19/04)
  • Re: checking array arguments (was Re: [OT] Funny) (02/19/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (was Re: checking array arguments (was Re: [OT] Funny)) (02/19/04)
  • checking array arguments (was Re: [OT] Funny) (02/19/04)
  • Re: [OT] Funny (02/18/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/18/04)
  • Re: F90 Matrix Memory Size (02/16/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/15/04)
  • understanding array dimensions (02/15/04)
  • Re: to calculate execution time in Fortran 77 (02/13/04)
  • Re: My subset selection software in Fortran (02/12/04)
  • NAG Fortran 95 has some F2003 features (02/11/04)
  • Re: F77 vs F95 (02/11/04)
  • old Fortran compilers (was Re: Character substrings) (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Character Function (02/10/04)
  • Re: Dynamic "PARAMETER" statement (02/10/04)
  • numerical library vendors don't use C++ (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • CVF, Absoft bug involving ELEMENTAL character functions (02/08/04)
  • why does Fortran 95 require DEALLOCATE? (02/08/04)
  • allocatable result of a function (02/08/04)
  • leave the amateurs alone (02/07/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/05/04)
  • Re: standard conformance (02/05/04)
  • Re: Laptop processor benchmarks: Centrino Pentium M vs Mobile Pentium IV ??? (02/05/04)
  • Re: INTENT(IN OUT) (02/05/04)
  • INTENT(IN OUT) (02/04/04)
  • Fortran 2003 new features (02/04/04)
  • Re: fortran compilers -- i've found one that works, are there any others? (02/03/04)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users (02/03/04)
  • Re: C routines for Special Functions (02/02/04)
  • internal READ from a CHARACTER array? (02/01/04)
  • Re: Is there a strategy for multiplatform builds and distributions? (01/31/04)
• berlutte_at_sympatico.ca
  • Re: FORTRAN or COBOL first ? (02/22/04)
• Bernard Bru
  • divide two integers (02/16/04)
• Bernd Fischer
  • Liscense Manager (02/11/04)
• Bernhard Georg Enders
  • Simple question about literal constants (02/19/04)
• Bil Kleb
  • Re: Salford compiler: Assigning a value to a constant expression is invalid (02/04/04)
  • Re: Salford compiler: Assigning a value to a constant expression is invalid (02/04/04)
  • Re: Fortran compiler for Opteron with OpenMP (02/01/04)
  • Salford compiler: Assigning a value to a constant expression is invalid (02/01/04)
• Bill
  • Re: numerical library vendors don't use C++ (02/11/04)
• Bill Blum
  • Re: FLECS Preprocessor Availability (02/19/04)
  • Re: NAG Fortran 95 has some F2003 features (02/12/04)
  • Re: Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (02/07/04)
  • Re: ifc 7.1 & FFTW Version 3 (02/06/04)
  • Re: code checking (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran and our Managers and reality (02/01/04)
• Bintz, S. H. (Silvia)
  • Re: F90 Matrix Memory Size (02/17/04)
  • F90 Matrix Memory Size (02/16/04)
• Bob Koehler
  • Re: VMS Fortran RTL restriction on file names? (02/19/04)
  • Re: VMS Fortran RTL restriction on file names? (02/19/04)
  • VMS Fortran RTL restriction on file names? (02/18/04)
• Bob Lidral
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/16/04)
  • Re: F77 vs F95 (02/11/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/05/04)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users (02/02/04)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users (02/01/04)
• Brian Howie
  • Re: fortran compilers -- i've found one that works, are there any others? (02/03/04)
• Brian Salter-Duke
  • Re: petition to retire Fortran (02/23/04)
• bv
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/29/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/27/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/27/04)
  • Re: interfaces in include files (02/25/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/25/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/14/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/13/04)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users (02/12/04)
  • Re: destructors in Fortran 03? (02/10/04)
  • Re: standard conformance (02/07/04)
  • Re: code checking (02/07/04)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users (02/03/04)
• Bård Skaflestad
  • Re: Indirect array addressing of optional parameters illegal? (02/29/04)
  • Re: Indirect array addressing of optional parameters illegal? (02/29/04)
  • Indirect array addressing of optional parameters illegal? (02/27/04)
• Catherine Rees Lay
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/27/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/24/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/22/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/20/04)
  • Re: Simple question about literal constants (02/19/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/18/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/12/04)
  • Re: GUI without resource files (02/11/04)
  • Re: F77 vs F95 (02/11/04)
  • Re: A tale of three Sun's (02/10/04)
  • Re: Character substrings (02/10/04)
  • Re: destructors in Fortran 03? (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
  • Re: code checking (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Re: internal READ from a CHARACTER array? (02/02/04)
• Charles Russell
  • Re: buggy code or buggy compiler? (02/26/04)
• Christopher M. Lusardi
  • Mixing Fortran Common Variables with C : How to get rid of warning messages (02/09/04)
• Claus Pedersen
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/27/04)
  • Re: Function with a dimension argument. (02/25/04)
  • Re: Function with a dimension argument. (02/25/04)
  • Function with a dimension argument. (02/25/04)
  • Re: Sun compiler bug with ELEMENTAL? (02/23/04)
  • Re: [OT] Funny (02/18/04)
  • Re: Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/11/04)
  • Re: Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/11/04)
  • Re: Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
  • Re: Size of Largest Array? (02/03/04)
• Clive Page
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/29/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/03/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/01/04)
  • Re: Bugs at my web site (01/31/04)
• CW Crane
  • Re: FLECS Preprocessor Availability (02/19/04)
  • FLECS Preprocessor Availability (02/19/04)
• Dan Tex1
  • Re: petition to retire Fortran (02/29/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/28/04)
  • Re: petition to retire Fortran (02/28/04)
  • Re: INCLUDE file (02/26/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: Character substrings (02/10/04)
  • Re: Character substrings (02/09/04)
• Dan McKinley
  • Sun Fortran Compiler bug? (02/16/04)
  • FORMAT(1X, A9999) maximum length for A format? (02/12/04)
• Dan Nagle
  • Re: Byte counting and newlines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Co-arrays (02/27/04)
  • Re: Co-arrays (02/26/04)
  • Re: Co-arrays (02/25/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/24/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/16/04)
  • Re: preconvert (02/12/04)
  • Re: preconvert (02/11/04)
  • Re: destructors in Fortran 03? (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/07/04)
  • Re: standard conformance (02/07/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
  • Re: Preprocessor directives ? (02/02/04)
  • Re: Preprocessor directives ? (02/01/04)
• Danguard
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: [Ignore it - Sorry] Riuso componenti sviluppati con .NET (02/03/04)
  • Riuso componenti sviluppati con .NET (02/03/04)
• Dave Seaman
  • Re: xlf 8.1: "Error in P3_FSTM. Call service representative." (02/06/04)
• Dave Thompson
  • Re: A basic, vexing question about lunits and file descriptors (02/23/04)
  • Re: Compiler bug? (02/14/04)
  • Re: Variable Length Arrays (02/09/04)
  • Re: Variable Length Arrays (02/02/04)
• David Frank
  • Re: Byte counting and newlines (02/28/04)
  • Fortran FASTER on net? (02/25/04)
  • Re: Challenge: statement to reverse char bits (02/22/04)
  • Challenge: statement to reverse char bits (02/22/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/19/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/12/04)
• David Ham
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/17/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/17/04)
  • Re: Simple question about literal constants (02/20/04)
  • Re: Pointers to elements of allocated array. (02/20/04)
  • Re: Simple question about literal constants (02/19/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/17/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/17/04)
  • Re: F90 Matrix Memory Size (02/17/04)
  • Re: F90 Matrix Memory Size (02/16/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/16/04)
  • Re: null pointer check on Linux (02/12/04)
  • Re: to calculate execution time in Fortran 77 (02/12/04)
  • Re: xml parsers in fortran (02/11/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/10/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/09/04)
  • Re: why does Fortran 95 require DEALLOCATE? (02/09/04)
  • Re: Segmentation fault (02/05/04)
  • Re: Segmentation fault (02/05/04)
  • Re: Segmentation fault (02/05/04)
  • Re: Laptop processor benchmarks: Centrino Pentium M vs Mobile Pentium IV ??? (02/05/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Re: fortran compilers -- i've found one that works, are there anyothers? (02/04/04)
  • Re: ifc 6.0 - where to get? (02/02/04)
  • Re: Preprocessor directives ? (02/02/04)
• David Jones
  • Re: Rudamentary CONSOLE I/O Routines for Windows (02/25/04)
  • Re: Need Help with Precision!! (02/12/04)
• David Klein
  • Re: Character substrings (02/15/04)
• Dick Hendrickson
  • Re: Procedure argument matching... (02/27/04)
  • Re: Indirect array addressing of optional parameters illegal? (02/27/04)
  • Re: buggy code or buggy compiler? (02/26/04)
  • Re: Array-valued expression (02/25/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: appending to a char (02/20/04)
  • Re: appending to a char (02/20/04)
  • Re: Example multi-precision code (02/18/04)
• Donald Arseneau
  • Re: Simple question about literal constants (02/20/04)
  • Re: STOP and continuation -- Re: multi-line strings (02/12/04)
  • Re: Character substrings (02/10/04)
  • Re: Salford compiler: Assigning a value to a constant expression is invalid (02/06/04)
• Dr Chaos
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/17/04)
  • Re: [OT] Funny (02/19/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/17/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/03/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/03/04)
• Dr Ivan D. Reid
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: F77 vs F95 (02/14/04)
  • Re: Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/14/04)
• Dr Margaret MacDougall
  • High Performance Query (02/02/04)
• Duane Bozarth
  • Re: newbie - dimensioning arrays and loading data in an old program (02/29/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/29/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/26/04)
  • OT: S/N ratios - was Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/22/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: standard conformance (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/05/04)
  • Re: Segmentation fault (02/05/04)
  • Re: newbie question fortran analog for #ifdef/#ifndef,conditional compilationpossibility (02/05/04)
• Dylan Sung
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
• E P Chandler
  • Re: [OT] Funny (02/18/04)
  • Re: GUI without resource files (02/13/04)
  • Re: fortran compilers -- i've found one that works, are there any others? (02/04/04)
• E. Robert Tisdale
  • Re: C++/Fortran mixing (02/27/04)
  • Troll Alert: Use of subroutines (02/27/04)
  • Re: C++/Fortran mixing (02/26/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • petition to retire Fortran (02/23/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/20/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/20/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/20/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/20/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/19/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/19/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/19/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/19/04)
  • Re: ARPACK reverse communication interface (02/14/04)
  • ARPACK reverse communication interface (02/14/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Mixing Fortran Common Variables with C : How to get rid of warning messages (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: destructors in Fortran 03? (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: destructors in Fortran 03? (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • destructors in Fortran 03? (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
• easylm
  • Re: Liscense Manager (02/13/04)
• Ed
  • multi-line strings (02/11/04)
  • Fortran 77 manual Fujitsu mainframe (02/11/04)
• Ed Wells
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/27/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/27/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/26/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/25/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/24/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/23/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/22/04)
  • Pointers to elements of allocated array. (02/19/04)
• Eric J. Kostelich
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/07/04)
• Fabian Braennstroem
  • Re: High Performance Fortran (02/08/04)
  • Re: High Performance Fortran (02/05/04)
  • High Performance Fortran (02/04/04)
• fermat
  • Re: Elements of multidimensional arrays - Fortran vs Matlab (02/18/04)
  • Elements of multidimensional arrays - Fortran vs Matlab (02/17/04)
• fiammetta
  • disabling crtl-c (02/07/04)
• flubie
  • intel fortran error message (02/27/04)
  • SOLVED --- Re: possible ifort bug ??? (02/24/04)
  • possible ifort bug ??? (02/24/04)
• Free
  • Re: Itanium2/Xeon64/Opteron (02/12/04)
• Gary L. Scott
  • Re: MODULE vs INCLUDE (CVF Directives) (02/28/04)
  • MODULE vs INCLUDE (CVF Directives) (02/27/04)
  • Re: Q: Summary Argument Passing Convention(s) (02/27/04)
  • Q: Summary Argument Passing Convention(s) (02/27/04)
  • Re: Rudamentary CONSOLE I/O Routines for Windows (02/26/04)
  • Re: Rudamentary CONSOLE I/O Routines for Windows (02/25/04)
  • Rudamentary CONSOLE I/O Routines for Windows (02/24/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/22/04)
  • Re: Fortran for Mac ? (02/22/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/22/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (was Re: checking array arguments (was Re: [OT] Funny)) (02/19/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/18/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/15/04)
  • Solaris/OpenMP Linking Error (02/14/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/14/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/14/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/14/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/14/04)
  • Re: Binary Module Format Changes (02/11/04)
  • Re: CVF 6.6B/C LINK.EXE Hang (02/11/04)
  • Re: CVF 6.6B/C LINK.EXE Hang (02/01/04)
• Gary Scott
  • Re: Rudamentary CONSOLE I/O Routines for Windows (02/25/04)
  • Re: VMS Fortran RTL restriction on file names? (02/19/04)
  • Re: GUI without resource files (02/11/04)
  • Binary Module Format Changes (02/10/04)
• Gary Strand
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/27/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/26/04)
  • Re: petition to retire Fortran (02/24/04)
• Georg Bauhaus
  • Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada ) (02/13/04)
• Gerry Thomas
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: [OT] Re: timing a program on Windows (02/25/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/18/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/18/04)
  • Re: Example multi-precision code (02/17/04)
  • Re: Something on CVF 6.6C (02/15/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/13/04)
  • Re: Need Help with Precision!! (02/13/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/13/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/12/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/12/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/12/04)
  • Re: Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (02/12/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/12/04)
  • Re: Need Help with Precision!! (02/12/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/11/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (was: Re: Hardware issues [Re: Floating point required exponent range?]) (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (was: Re: Hardware issues [Re: Floating point required exponent range?]) (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/07/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/07/04)
  • Re: Bug, out of standard or human error? (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
  • Re: Bug, out of standard or human error? (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
  • Re: standard conformance (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/03/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
• Giulia Paramour
  • Re: Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/12/04)
  • Re: Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/11/04)
  • Re: Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/11/04)
  • Re: Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/10/04)
  • Re: Sun bug reports (02/10/04)
  • Re: Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/10/04)
  • Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/10/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/10/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/09/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/09/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/08/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/08/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/08/04)
  • Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
• glen herrmannsfeldt
  • Re: newbie - dimensioning arrays and loading data in an old program (02/29/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/27/04)
  • Re: C++/Fortran mixing (02/27/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/27/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/27/04)
  • Re: Initial padding for common block (02/26/04)
  • Re: Initial padding for common block (02/26/04)
  • Re: Initial padding for common block (02/26/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/26/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/26/04)
  • Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed (02/26/04)
  • Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed (02/25/04)
  • Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed (02/25/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/25/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/25/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/24/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/24/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: Converting Fortran module to C++ (02/24/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: Embedding CVS Information (02/23/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/23/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/23/04)
  • Re: Embedding CVS Information (02/23/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/16/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/16/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/15/04)
  • Re: Compiler bug? (02/14/04)
  • Re: preconvert (02/11/04)
  • Re: preconvert (02/11/04)
  • Re: Need Help with Precision!! (02/11/04)
  • Re: I really did get burned today [LONG] (02/11/04)
  • Re: high precision on low values (02/11/04)
  • Re: Fortran suspending execution (02/11/04)
  • Re: F77 vs F95 (02/11/04)
  • Re: F77 vs F95 (02/11/04)
  • Re: Another bug in Sun's compiler (02/11/04)
  • Re: A tale of three Sun's (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: format and f95 (02/10/04)
  • Re: Variable Length Arrays (02/09/04)
  • Re: Character substrings (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Compiler bug? (02/06/04)
  • Re: Hardware issues [Re: Floating point required exponent range?] (02/06/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/06/04)
  • Re: code checking (02/06/04)
  • Re: standard conformance (02/06/04)
  • Re: Salford95 and Lahey-Fujitsu Compiler producing different output with same program (02/05/04)
  • Re: Salford95 and Lahey-Fujitsu Compiler producing different output with same program (02/05/04)
  • Re: INTENT(IN OUT) (02/05/04)
  • Re: Salford95 and Lahey-Fujitsu Compiler producing different output with same program (02/05/04)
  • Re: INTENT(IN OUT) (02/05/04)
  • Re: INTENT(IN OUT) (02/04/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/03/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/03/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: byte table? (02/02/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: Itanium2/Xeon64/Opteron (02/02/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
• Gordon Sande
  • Re: Byte counting and newlines (02/29/04)
  • Re: Byte counting and newlines (02/28/04)
  • Re: INCLUDE file (02/26/04)
  • Re: Embedding CVS Information (02/23/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/23/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/22/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/22/04)
  • Re: Example multi-precision code (02/19/04)
  • Re: interfaces in include files (02/18/04)
  • Re: interfaces in include files (02/18/04)
  • Re: STOP and continuation -- Re: multi-line strings (02/12/04)
  • Re: Binary Module Format Changes (02/11/04)
  • Re: Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (was: Re: Hardware issues [Re: Floating point required exponent range?]) (02/08/04)
  • Re: leave the amateurs alone (02/07/04)
  • Re: Dimensional analysis / units checking and conversion during compilation (02/06/04)
  • Re: fortran compilers -- i've found one that works, are there any others? (02/03/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
• Grant
  • Re: Displaying numbers beyond [E-99,E+99] (02/18/04)
  • Re: Displaying numbers beyond [E-99,E+99] (02/18/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/09/04)
  • Re: Dimensional analysis / units checking and conversion during compilation (02/09/04)
• Grant W. Petty
  • Re: Dimensional analysis / units checking and conversion during compilation (02/05/04)
• Greg Chien
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/27/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/27/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/27/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/26/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/24/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/22/04)
  • Re: Fortran suspending execution (02/11/04)
  • Re: destructors in Fortran 03? (02/11/04)
  • Re: Fortran suspending execution (02/11/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/11/04)
  • Re: destructors in Fortran 03? (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/04/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/04/04)
• Greg Dutkowski
  • Passing array of derived data types to a subroutine (02/16/04)
• Greg Lindahl
  • Re: petition to retire Fortran (02/29/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/28/04)
  • Re: Co-arrays (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/27/04)
  • Re: buggy code or buggy compiler? (02/27/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/26/04)
  • Re: Co-arrays (02/26/04)
  • Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed (02/26/04)
  • Re: buggy code or buggy compiler? (02/26/04)
  • Re: Co-arrays (02/25/04)
  • Re: Co-arrays (02/25/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/24/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: SOLVED --- Re: possible ifort bug ??? (02/24/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: OT: S/N ratios - was Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: Challenge: statement to reverse char bits (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/19/04)
  • Re: Strange address error with IFC (02/19/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/17/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/16/04)
  • Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada ) (02/13/04)
  • Re: Size of Largest Array? (02/03/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/03/04)
  • Re: Itanium2/Xeon64/Opteron (02/01/04)
• Gus Gassmann
  • Array-valued expression (02/25/04)
  • Re: Compiler bug? (02/06/04)
  • Compiler bug? (02/06/04)
• Han JIANG
  • Re: Fortran 2003 and F (02/21/04)
• Harald Anlauf
  • Re: netcdf and the intel fortran 8.0 compiler (02/18/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/09/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/09/04)
  • Re: Intel ifort compiler problem - part II (02/08/04)
  • Re: Proper USEing in F (02/02/04)
  • Proper USEing in F (02/01/04)
• Harshal
  • high precision on low values (02/11/04)
• Helge Avlesen
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/27/04)
  • Re: Co-arrays (02/25/04)
  • Co-arrays (02/25/04)
  • Re: F90 Matrix Memory Size (02/16/04)
  • Re: Laptop processor benchmarks: Centrino Pentium M vs Mobile Pentium IV ??? (02/06/04)
• Helge Kreutzmann
  • Re: ifc 7.1 & FFTW Version 3 (02/17/04)
  • Re: ifc 7.1 & FFTW Version 3 (02/11/04)
  • Re: ifc 7.1 & FFTW Version 3 (02/06/04)
  • ifc 7.1 & FFTW Version 3 (02/05/04)
• Helmut Michels
  • Data Plotting Library DISLIN for G95/Linux (02/23/04)
  • [ANN] Data Plotting Library DISLIN 8.2 (02/16/04)
• Herman D. Knoble
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/25/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/25/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/25/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/24/04)
  • Re: possible ifort bug ??? (02/24/04)
  • Re: possible ifort bug ??? (02/24/04)
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
  • Re: Do-loop standards conformance (02/23/04)
  • Re: Do-loop standards conformance (02/23/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/22/04)
  • Re: Example multi-precision code (02/17/04)
  • Re: Simple question about literal constants (02/19/04)
  • Re: Example multi-precision code (02/17/04)
  • Re: Example multi-precision code (02/17/04)
  • Re: F90 Matrix Memory Size (02/16/04)
  • Re: F77 vs F95 (02/10/04)
  • Re: Mixing Fortran Common Variables with C : How to get rid of warning messages (02/09/04)
  • Re: Laptop processor benchmarks: Centrino Pentium M vs Mobile Pentium IV ??? (02/05/04)
  • Re: Salford95 and Lahey-Fujitsu Compiler producing different output with same program (02/05/04)
  • Re: Salford compiler: Assigning a value to a constant expression is invalid (02/04/04)
  • Re: Salford compiler: Assigning a value to a constant expression is invalid (02/02/04)
• Highland Statistics
  • job (02/25/04)
• Håkan Lane
  • Re: null pointer check on Linux (02/12/04)
  • null pointer check on Linux (02/12/04)
• Ian Bush
  • Re: Eigensystems in Fortran with MPI (02/22/04)
  • Re: Compiler options for XL Fortran on AIX (02/15/04)
• ioson
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/27/04)
• J. F. Cornwall
  • Re: Fortran advocacy (was Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future) (02/23/04)
  • Re: Example multi-precision code (02/17/04)
  • Re: fortran compilers -- i've found one that works, are there any others? (02/03/04)
• Jack
  • newbie - dimensioning arrays and loading data in an old program (02/28/04)
• Jack Klein
  • Re: C++/Fortran mixing (02/27/04)
• jakeh
  • Salford95 and Lahey-Fujitsu Compiler producing different output with same program (02/05/04)
  • fortran compilers -- i've found one that works, are there any others? (02/03/04)
• James Cownie
  • Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed (02/26/04)
  • Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed (02/26/04)
  • Re: Array-valued expression (02/26/04)
  • Legality of USE to swap names (02/06/04)
  • Re: DO loop standards question. (02/03/04)
  • DO loop standards question. (02/02/04)
• James Giles
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/22/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/22/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/22/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/21/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/17/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/20/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/20/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/19/04)
  • Re: Variable Format Expressions (02/17/04)
  • Re: [OT] Funny (02/18/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/17/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/17/04)
  • Re: Variable Format Expressions (02/17/04)
  • Re: multi-line strings (02/11/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: destructors in Fortran 03? (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/10/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (was: Re: Hardware issues [Re: Floating point required exponent range?]) (02/07/04)
  • Re: Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (was: Re: Hardware issues [Re: Floating point required exponent range?]) (02/07/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
  • Re: INTENT(IN OUT) (02/05/04)
  • Re: Is this standard f90? (02/04/04)
  • Re: Is this standard f90? (02/03/04)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users (02/03/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/03/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users (02/02/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/01/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/01/04)
  • Re: Preprocessor directives ? (02/01/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/01/04)
• James Rogers
  • Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada ) (02/13/04)
• James Van Buskirk
  • Re: Procedure argument matching... (02/27/04)
  • Re: appending elements to an ALLOCATABLE array (02/26/04)
  • Re: Automatic variables (02/25/04)
  • Re: Function with a dimension argument. (02/25/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/25/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/25/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/25/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/25/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/24/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/22/04)
  • Re: Challenge: statement to reverse char bits (02/22/04)
  • Re: [OT] Funny (02/19/04)
  • Re: interfaces in include files (02/18/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/17/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/16/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/16/04)
  • Re: I really did get burned today [LONG] (02/11/04)
  • Re: Character Function (02/10/04)
  • Re: Character Function (02/10/04)
  • Re: Character substrings (02/09/04)
  • Re: IFC - cabs() ?? (02/09/04)
  • Re: IFC - cabs() ?? (02/09/04)
  • I really did get burned today [LONG] (02/08/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/03/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/03/04)
• Jan C. Vorbrüggen
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (02/20/04)
  • Re: Mutual derived type dependencies (02/20/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/19/04)
  • Re: Simple question about literal constants (02/19/04)
  • Re: What is the major difference between Fortran90 and Fortran95? (02/19/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/19/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/19/04)
  • Re: Mutual derived type dependencies (02/19/04)
  • Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada ) (02/19/04)
  • Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada ) (02/13/04)
  • Re: Binary Module Format Changes (02/10/04)
  • Re: format and f95 (02/10/04)
  • Re: Legality of USE to swap names (02/09/04)
  • Re: Legality of USE to swap names (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
  • Re: Laptop processor benchmarks: Centrino Pentium M vs Mobile Pentium IV ??? (02/06/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/06/04)
  • Re: standard conformance (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/05/04)
  • Re: Segmentation fault (02/05/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/05/04)
  • Re: Segmentation fault (02/05/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/04/04)
  • Re: fortran compilers -- i've found one that works, are there anyothers? (02/04/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/04/04)
  • Re: Intel Visual Fortran V8 (IA-32): What do I need to link? (02/03/04)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users (02/03/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/03/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/03/04)
  • Re: DO loop standards question. (02/02/04)
  • Re: Itanium2/Xeon64/Opteron (02/02/04)
  • Re: F and G95 (02/02/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
  • Re: Size of Largest Array? (02/02/04)
  • Re: fortran and columns (02/02/04)
  • Re: Variable Length Arrays (02/02/04)
• Jan Mandel
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/19/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/19/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/15/04)
  • Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/15/04)
• Jason
  • Re: netcdf and the intel fortran 8.0 compiler (02/20/04)
  • Re: Is this standard f90? (02/04/04)
  • Is this standard f90? (02/03/04)
• Jason Nielsen
  • Re: F and G95 (01/31/04)
• Jean-Charles
  • Re: Fortran for Mac ? (02/23/04)
  • Fortran for Mac ? (02/22/04)
• jeffrey templon
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
• John Collins
  • Re: modifying constants (02/24/04)
• John Harper
  • Re: [OT] Funny (02/18/04)
  • Re: A basic, vexing question about lunits and file descriptors (02/12/04)
  • Re: multi-line strings (02/12/04)
  • Re: A tale of three Sun's (02/10/04)
  • Re: Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (02/08/04)
  • Re: Dimensional analysis / units checking and conversion during compilation (02/08/04)
  • Re: Salford95 and Lahey-Fujitsu Compiler producing different output with same program (02/05/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/03/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/03/04)
  • Re: NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: appending to a char (02/02/04)
  • NAG, Sun, Compaq possible f95 bug (02/02/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/01/04)
• John Hunter
  • Re: byte table? (02/02/04)
  • byte table? (02/02/04)
• John Mansell
  • Re: Salford95 and Lahey-Fujitsu Compiler producing different output with same program (02/05/04)
• John Reagan
  • Re: VMS Fortran RTL restriction on file names? (02/18/04)
• John W. Eaton
  • Re: Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (was: Re: Hardware issues [Re: Floating point required exponent range?]) (02/07/04)
  • Is Fortran a legal system or religion? (was: Re: Hardware issues [Re: Floating point required exponent range?]) (02/07/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
• John Wingate
  • Re: Proper USEing in F (02/02/04)
• Joost VandeVondele
  • xlf / nag / ifort / pgf90 vs g95 / sun f90 / ifc 7.1 (02/06/04)
• Jugoslav Dujic
  • Re: DVF/CVF/IVF: How to access the EXE's file version info? (02/26/04)
  • Re: Automatic variables (02/26/04)
  • Re: Embedded SQL in f90 on WIndows (02/24/04)
  • Re: Embedding CVS Information (02/24/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/23/04)
  • Re: Function evaluation (02/23/04)
  • Re: Embedding CVS Information (02/23/04)
  • Re: Mutual derived type dependencies (02/19/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (was Re: checking array arguments (was Re: [OT] Funny)) (02/19/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/13/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/13/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/12/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/11/04)
  • Re: GUI without resource files (02/11/04)
  • Re: Dynamic "PARAMETER" statement (02/10/04)
  • Re: Legality of USE to swap names (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/07/04)
  • Re: xlf / nag / ifort / pgf90 vs g95 / sun f90 / ifc 7.1 (02/06/04)
  • Re: standard conformance (02/06/04)
  • Re: Segmentation fault (02/05/04)
  • Re: INTENT(IN OUT) (02/05/04)
  • Re: Run-time error when "Multiline" edit box property used in DVF 6.0 (02/03/04)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users (02/02/04)
• Jurang
  • About assumed array (02/20/04)
• Keith Refson - real email address in signature
  • Re: Problem with Intel ifort (ifc) 8.0 compiler (02/05/04)
• Kelvin Hales
  • Re: Liscense Manager (02/13/04)
• Ken Fairfield
  • Re: Embedding CVS Information (02/23/04)
  • Re: Functions vs. Subroutines (was Re: checking array arguments (was Re: [OT] Funny)) (02/21/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/09/04)
• Ken Plotkin
  • Re: intel linux compiler (02/29/04)
  • Re: newbie - dimensioning arrays and loading data in an old program (02/29/04)
  • Re: newbie - dimensioning arrays and loading data in an old program (02/29/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/29/04)
  • Re: Byte counting and newlines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Byte counting and newlines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/25/04)
  • Re: [OT] Re: timing a program on Windows (02/25/04)
  • Re: [OT] Re: timing a program on Windows (02/24/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/23/04)
  • Re: Fortran advocacy (was Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future) (02/22/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/22/04)
  • Re: timing a program on Windows (02/22/04)
  • Re: Fortran advocacy (was Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future) (02/22/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/20/04)
  • Re: ARPACK reverse communication interface (02/14/04)
  • Re: GUI without resource files (02/11/04)
  • Re: F77 vs F95 (02/11/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/08/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/06/04)
  • Re: Fortran vs. C++ : Which is best to choose now i (02/05/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/01/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/01/04)
• Kevin
  • appending to a char (02/02/04)
• Kevin G. Rhoads
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/29/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/29/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/29/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/28/04)
  • Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed (02/27/04)
  • Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed (02/25/04)
  • Language lawyer interpretation needed (02/25/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/24/04)
  • Re: How to compile this? (02/13/04)
  • STOP and continuation -- Re: multi-line strings (02/11/04)
  • Re: passing file unit numbers to DLL functions (02/11/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/04/04)
  • Re: fortran compilers -- i've found one that works, are there any others? (02/03/04)
• Ki Hwan Lee
  • intel linux compiler (02/29/04)
• kia
  • Re: understanding array dimensions (02/16/04)
• Klaus Wacker
  • Re: How to compile this? (02/13/04)
• Kostrena
  • how to measure very long time intervals in fortarn 77 (02/16/04)
• Laksono Adhianto
  • WOMPAT 2004 (CALL FOR PAPERS) (02/11/04)
• Larry Young
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/25/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/25/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/25/04)
  • Re: interfaces in include files (02/24/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/24/04)
  • Re: Copy-in/Copy-out (02/24/04)
  • Copy-in/Copy-out (02/24/04)
  • Re: interfaces in include files (02/24/04)
• LeoPardo
  • Re: Segmentation fault (02/05/04)
  • Segmentation fault (02/05/04)
• Les
  • Re: INCLUDE file (02/26/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/23/04)
  • Re: Example multi-precision code (02/19/04)
  • Re: high precision on low values (02/12/04)
  • Re: destructors in Fortran 03? (02/09/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/03/04)
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
• leslie
  • Re: Fortran - a "technology that refuses to die" (02/02/04)
• Liam Gumley
  • xlf90 link problem on OS X (02/09/04)
• Luca Pignagnoli
  • INCLUDE file (02/26/04)
• Madhusudan Singh
  • Re: Displaying numbers beyond [E-99,E+99] (02/18/04)
  • Re: Strange address error with IFC (02/20/04)
  • [OT] Funny (02/18/04)
  • Re: Displaying numbers beyond [E-99,E+99] (02/18/04)
  • Re: Displaying numbers beyond [E-99,E+99] (02/18/04)
  • Re: Creating a pipe with IFC (02/03/04)
  • Re: Creating a pipe with IFC (02/02/04)
• Manfred Hauser
  • Re: inline assembler (02/03/04)
  • Re: inline assembler (02/02/04)
  • inline assembler (02/01/04)
• Markus Gyger
  • Re: Sun Fortran Compiler bug? (02/16/04)
• marlinswin_at_yahoo.com
  • Initial padding for common block (02/26/04)
• Mart Rentmeester
  • Re: Fortran90 and XML DOM (02/19/04)
• Matthew
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/29/04)
  • Re: A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/21/04)
  • A petition to J3 apropos FORTRAN's future (02/20/04)
• Maxime Boissonneault
  • Eigensystems in Fortran with MPI (02/22/04)
• Mayer Humi
  • Itanium2/Xeon64/Opteron (02/01/04)
• mcalhoun_at_ksu.edu
  • Re: Character substrings (02/13/04)
  • Re: Character substrings (02/10/04)
• meek_at_skyway.usask.ca
  • RE: Challenge: statement to reverse char bits (02/23/04)
  • RE: Need Help with Precision!! (02/11/04)
  • RE: Segmentation fault (02/05/04)
• meridian_at_cix.compulink.co.uk
  • Copy of DVF/CVF needed (02/26/04)
• Michael Klatt
  • Re: Mutual derived type dependencies (02/19/04)
  • Mutual derived type dependencies (02/15/04)
• Michael Metcalf
  • Re: problems converting unix code to linux code (direct access files) (02/20/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/17/04)
  • Re: Elements of multidimensional arrays - Fortran vs Matlab (02/17/04)
  • Re: Pointers to elements of allocated array. (02/20/04)
  • Re: About assumed array (02/20/04)
  • Re: Pointers to elements of allocated array. (02/19/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/19/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/19/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/19/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/19/04)
  • Re: [OT] Funny (02/19/04)
  • Re: [OT] Funny (02/18/04)
  • Re: interfaces in include files (02/18/04)
  • Fortran Resources (February) (02/18/04)
  • Re: How does one create multidimensional array constants? (02/17/04)
  • Re: Elements of multidimensional arrays - Fortran vs Matlab (02/17/04)
  • Re: Elements of multidimensional arrays - Fortran vs Matlab (02/17/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/17/04)
  • Re: divide two integers (02/16/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/16/04)
  • Re: Mutual derived type dependencies (02/15/04)
  • Re: Displaying numbers beyond [E-99,E+99] (02/15/04)
  • Re: Fortran memory management, error handling, and efficiency (02/15/04)
  • Re: null pointer check on Linux (02/12/04)
  • Re: multi-line strings (02/11/04)
  • Re: multi-line strings (02/11/04)
  • Re: CVF 6.6B - slow calculation speed (02/11/04)
  • Re: f2f90 (02/10/04)
  • Re: Dynamic "PARAMETER" statement (02/10/04)
  • Re: Bug in Sun complier (02/10/04)
  • Re: format and f95 (02/09/04)
  • Re: How to use heap? (02/07/04)
  • Re: High Performance Fortran (02/07/04)
  • Re: xlf / nag / ifort / pgf90 vs g95 / sun f90 / ifc 7.1 (02/07/04)
• Michael Prager
  • Re: Language lawyer interpretation needed (02/26/04)
  • Re: Use of subroutines (02/26/0