------- Comment #8 from anickol at yahoo dot com 2009-04-08 07:12 ------- >One of the questions which immediately come up, >which data type is $foo (implicit typing)
One interpretation of implicit typing of Fortran is: I-N are integers, everything else is real. >I think the issue had come up before and the PRs were closed as wont-fix. Sorry, but I could not find it. I searched the database before posting. >I think the primary point of a compiler is to be standard compliant. >My impression is that nowadays all compiler vendors and most of the compiler customers think likewise. That's correct, but Fortran (and possibly also Cobol and Algol, if anybody cares about Algol, which I doubt) is probably an exception. It is not widely used nowadays, and there are two reasons to keep it: there is a lot of legacy code and there are people who do not want to learn modern languages. >I think gfortran does fairly well in this regard compared with other >compilers, except of DEC structures all major extensions should be there. You can see a survey at http://www.polyhedron.com/pb05-win32-language0html and find out that gfortran and g95 are somewhere in the middle, neither best nor worst. The leader is Intel Fortran. It is also makes the fastest code according to the same source. >It would help if you could make a survey (e.g. based on the >documentation) and see how the few other compilers, which support it, are >handling that. (I think IBM does, the xlf90 documentation could be a starting >point.) I already know that the following compilers do support $ as the first symbol: Intel Fortran 9.1 Open Watcom Fortran 1.8 MS Fortran for DOS 5.1 Open Watcom Fortran implicit type for $ is REAL. (arrogant comments in the style "go learn SED" are ignored) Speaking on $ as a legal symbol I can only add that this extension is already supported by gfortran, but in the way that is different from all other implementors. Clearly it is impossible to implement all possible extensions from all vendors ever existed, but probably there is a reason to make already implemented extension compatible with others. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39670
