Re: IBM XL Fortran
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Maine)
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:54:25 -0800
Gib Bogle <g.bogle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Since I didn't get a reply to my post about a bug in IBM XL Fortran, I'd
like to ask some more general questions. Is anyone here using XL
Fortran? If so, do you have any problems with it? What is the general
opinion about this compiler? Is it well supported?
It has been a long time since I had an oportunity to work with IBM XL
Fortran. There were only a handful of suitable IBM boxes at work. They
weren't boxes that I often worked on, and the group who did use them
moved on to other boxes several years ago (I forget how many years, but
more than a few).
My general impression, from the little work I did, plus a bit of
3rd-hand data, is that it was/is a solid, well-maintained compiler. It
tended to be pickier than some about requiring code to conform to the
standard, but I don't necessarily regard that as a negative.
I played a little with the beta of IBM's port of that compiler to OS X.
We never bought the released copy, but that was just because 1) it was
priced awfully high, and 2) we already had a site license for the Nag
compiler, which we were happy with. But I was pleased with the technical
aspects of the compiler. I particular recalled thinking that the beta
version of the IBM compiler seemed more stable than the released
versions of some others.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
.
- References:
- IBM XL Fortran
- From: Gib Bogle
- IBM XL Fortran
- Prev by Date: Re: End of record marker - 32 vs. 64 bit
- Next by Date: Re: End of record marker - 32 vs. 64 bit
- Previous by thread: IBM XL Fortran
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
