From chemistry-request@ccl.net Fri Jul 30 22:02:37 2004
Received: from email.ccl.net (pagergate.ccl.net [192.148.249.4])
	by server.ccl.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i6V32aZg001076
	for <chemistry<<at>>ccl.net>; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:02:36 -0500
Received: from arlen.ccl.net (arlen.ccl.net [192.148.249.10])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by email.ccl.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 17FF527C012; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:09:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:09:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Brozell <srb<<at>>ccl.net>
To: john <jmmckel<<at>>attglobal.net>
Cc: chemistry<<at>>ccl.net
Subject: Re: CCL:F95 to f90 converter
In-Reply-To: <410A661C.286A0BE0<<at>>attglobal.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0407302253380.24550<<at>>arlen.ccl.net>
References: <410A661C.286A0BE0<<at>>attglobal.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=7.5 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.61
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on 
	servernd.ccl.net

Hello,

F95 provides only very slight enhancements to F90.
In fact, I can't remember any big ones off the top of my head;
@book{metcalf96,
  author = "{Michael Metcalf and John Reid}",
  title = "{Fortran} 90/95 Explained",
  publisher = "Oxford University Press",
  address = "New York",
  year = 1996 }
does mention the differences.

However, all(?) current F90 compilers actually support the F95 standard.
For example, the ~free Intel compiler ifort.

I haven't looked for F90/95 -> F77 converters, but if the program is
small then hand conversion is straightforward: unroll modules via
local common blocks to represent module data, remove interface statements,
etc., convert array expressions to do loops, make minor syntax changes, eg,

integer, parameter :: fun = 101

      integer fun
      parameter (fun=101)

Scott Brozell,
High Performance Technologies, Inc.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, john wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I have a small  f95 code given to me, but only f77/f90 compilers for
> both Linux and Windows.  There is a free g95 compiler out there that
> _almost_ compiles the code I have...  For purposes of interfacing this
> code with my existing f77/f90 code at the moment I prefer to convert the
> code to f77/f90...
>
> I've seen f77->f90, and maybe f90->f95, but not the reverse...
>
> Any suggestions would be most appreciated..
>
> John McKelvey