Hi Tim, > Do you mean you are adding an additional level of functions and hoping
> for efficient in-lining? Note that my questions arise in the context of automatic code generation: http://cci.lbl.gov/fable Please compare e.g. the original LAPACK code with the generated C++ code to see why the C++ code is done the way it is. A goal more important than speed is that the auto-generated C++ code is similar to the original Fortran code and not inflated/obfuscated by constructs meant to cater to optimizers (which change over time anyway). My original posting shows that gfortran and g++ don't do as good a job as ifort in generating efficient machine code. Note that the loss going from gfortran to g++ isn't as bad as going from ifort to gfortran. This gives me hope that the gcc developers could work over time towards bringing the performance of the g++-generated code closer to the original ifort performance. I think speed will be the major argument against using the C++ code generated by the automatic converter. If the generated C++ code could somehow be made to run nearly as fast as the original Fortran compiled with ifort there wouldn't be any good reason anymore to still develop in Fortran, or to bother with the complexities of mixing languages. Ralf