Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA6436 ; Sat, 09 Jan 93 13:02:57 EST Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!zia.aoc.nrao.edu!laphroaig!cflatter From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters) Subject: Re: [386bsd] f2c with record/structure sup Message-ID: <1993Jan11.230414.24760@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> Sender: news@zia.aoc.nrao.edu Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu Organization: NRAO References: <1993Jan11.212052.1545@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 23:04:14 GMT Lines: 25 In article 1545@fcom.cc.utah.edu, terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: >In article <1993Jan10.211632.3269@ll.mit.edu> pope@ll.mit.edu (Frank Pope) writes: >>Hi >> >>Does anyone out there know of a f2c translator which has been ported to >>386bsd that has support for fortran records and structures. I believe >>these are features found in FORTRAN 90 [not sure]. I want to >>convert some software written using MS Fortran 5.1 to c and run it >>under 386bsd. Thanks in advance. > >I don't know of many compilers, let alone translators, which support '90. > >Historically, the ANSI-90 FORTRAN was rejected by most major vendors, >either due to a lack of backward compatability or conflicts with vendor >extensions (depending on the vendor); it was rejected by Harris, DEC, >HP, and IBM... dunno if Sun was involved at all. IBM defected from the Luddite faction as early as May 1989. I believe that HP were long-time supporters of Fortran 90 as were Sun. Incidentally, Fortran 90 *is* backwards compatible with FORTRAN 77 but does not include some vendors extensions. User defined types have a syntax that differs from the VMS Fortran style adopted my Microsoft. Chris Flatters cflatter@nrao.edu