Is GFortran stable enough to actually use?

[Steven Bosscher]

On Friday 14 July 2006 16:56, Joe Krahn wrote:
> GFortran is able to compile very little of my Fortran90+ code. But, it
> seem that it is now supposed to be in 'stable' production mode. Should I
> start sending in a huge number of bug reports, or are there already
> enough known bugs to stay busy?

If you have bugs, please do file them.  I don't think anyone really
likes seeing bugs, but hey, if they're real bugs they should be fixed.

> And, where do I send bug reports. 
> gfortran.org and the Gfortran Wiki seem to no longer exist.

The wiki on gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Gfortran was taken down a few days ago
because it is constantly being vandalized.  People are working on a
solution so the wiki should be back up (hopefully) soon.

> Meanwhile, G95 works really well, even better than Intel Fortran. It's
> too bad that Gnu is unwilling to let G95 be the real compiler and still
> let Andy be the controlling author, sort of like Linus and Linux. Right
> now, G95 is so much better, it's hard to consider wasting time on
> GFortran.

Gfortran works better for me (g95 does not support many things that
I use, such as OpenMP and Cray pointers), so I use gfortran.  If g95
works better for  you, you should g95.  And if you're willing to file
gfortran bugs when you find them, that is very helpful and much
appreciated.

> But, if the hardcore FSF ideals make it impossible to accept 
> G95, I am willing to at least contribute good bug reports to GFortran.

It has nothing to do with hardcore ideals.  I don't know where you
got that idea from, but to be honest I don't really care and I think
that is the case for most people here.  Folks here just try to build
a decent Fortran 95 compiler and as far as I can tell it's not at all
an unsuccessful effort.

Gr.
Steven