Re: Online F77 information...

In article <1162234794.666421.100330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
magesing <magesing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think most Fortran textbooks are a good place to start, and
they also provide some decent references to refer back to when I'm
coding. If you have access to a good library, try checking out some
books on Fortran 90/95/2003 and FORTRAN 77.

Are there any which you have used personally adn would recommend I seek
out? I do have access to an extensive library at the university.

First choice: Metcalf "Effective Fortran 77" on that dialect,
and Metcalf Reid & Cohen "Fortran 95/2003 Explained" on those dialects.

Second choice: Adams et al. "Fortran 95 Handbook"

Third choice, for use if you suspect you have been misled by the
others, or if you get into c.l.f discussions of arcane points:
the f95 and f2003 standards. Google helps you find them.

Metcalf et al. is briefer and easier to follow than Adams et al., which
is easier to follow than the f95 standard. There are a few places where
they disagree; the standard takes precedence. Don't complain to your
compiler vendor unless the compiler seems not to be standard-conforming.
There are two tests for that.
1. If your program makes the compiler crash with a core dump at compile
time (not run time), that proves that the compiler is not standard-
conforming, whether or not your program is standard-conforming.
2. Errors in your program that the compiler fails to catch are evidence
of compiler bugs only if those errors contravene Constraints listed as
such in the standard (or, for f95, in Adams et al.)

As yet there are no f2003 compilers; there are many f95 ones, of which
g95 and gfortran are free. I have found that g95 bugs get fixed faster
than any other compiler's.

-- John Harper, School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science,
Victoria University, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
e-mail john.harper@xxxxxxxxx phone (+64)(4)463 5341 fax (+64)(4)463 5045
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bugs at my web site
    ... >> I don't think it's being maintained now, but given that Fortran 77 isn't ... >what might prove fatal with a new compiler. ... >that I think they are good traditional fortran, whatever some standard might ... guess at heart I'm still a scientist rather than a Real Programmer :-) ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Bugs at my web site
    ... what might prove fatal with a new compiler. ... that I think they are good traditional fortran, whatever some standard might ... I hope the g95 people, after taking a good long vacation to ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Integer Coersion
    ... and as this is Fortran not Delphi, ... vaguely standard conforming. ... Your compiler supports SIZEOF as do several others including my ... to be other than 8bits when cheap memory came on the scene and BURIED ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Starting to doubt fortran
    ... that there were absolutely no "clever" tricks. ... time a new version of the vendors C compiler comes out. ... Fortran), it could be reliably depended upon in a portable way. ... That's beyond the standard, but many tend to be so ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)
    ... > that someone will try compile their stuff on an old compiler. ... > because the ANSI standard obsoleted them, and everyone picked up the ANSI ... fixed by using another language. ... >>are multiplying two expressions of the widest type supported by your ...
    (comp.lang.c)