This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: gfortran experiences...
- From: Kamaraju Kusumanchi <kamaraju at gmail dot com>
- To: gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:28:00 -0400
- Subject: Re: gfortran experiences...
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=KU7t7ASBogSlCOSbkhhDF2v6ttOzvbOtuuXbBt3a+2o0ogiFiomMC7gpP8WgdjpMU3h1j0YblirdYX1bil+BBiNKkk358KbF5QVIl3YYTin/3Axt6S/oxXQl2/qSZix9Fok+fhtAtMO39G+irQXjfGq8YOBODlA0HcPDl83WkYQ=
- References: <20050428134142.GC24104@ccc3.wpi.edu>
- Reply-to: Kamaraju Kusumanchi <kamaraju at gmail dot com>
On 4/28/05, Josh Brandt <jbrandt@wpi.edu> wrote:
>
> Running fortran 90 code on a dual Opteron, the binary produced by gfortran
> 4.0 came in about 10 percent faster than the intel F90 compiler for E64MT.
> (I'm not surprised that the Intel compiler was pretty slow on AMD chips, but
> it's interesting to see.) The important thing is that it happily compiled
> and ran the DLPOLY package, though, which means that we don't have to buy an
> expensive AMD-specific compiler.
>
> Anyway, good work, and thanks. I've been waiting for a good free F90/F95
> compiler for a couple of years now.
>
Hi Josh
I am very excited to see that gfortran beats a commercial compiler.
Could you tell us more about how you compared? What optimization
levels are used? Is debugging information generated? How does the run
time performance compare etc.,?
thanks
raju
--
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/mpich