Subject: Re: CCL:F95 to f90 converter

From: Matt Thompson <thompsma_at_colorado.edu>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:21:42 -0600

Scott Brozell wrote:
> 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.

They are, I believe, the FORALL construct, user-defined PURE and 
ELEMENTAL subprograms, ability to initialize pointers during definition 
as NULL, and derived-type initialization.  There were also minor addons 
like the NULL and CPU_TIME function, SIGN knows about +0 and -0, and 
other stuff.

I believe a few things were deleted too, like Hollerith in FORMAT and 
real DO indices.

I think I've read my F95 book much too often...

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

Well, from the original post, it looks like he might be using gfortran 
which is GNU's f95 compiler in development.  It can't quite do 
everything right now.

If it truly is heavy-f95 that a strict f90-only compiler (?) can't take, 
the culprit is usually one of the main changes, a FORALL, PURE, 
ELEMENTAL, or NULL creeping in.
-- 
Learning just means you were wrong and they were right. - Aram
    Matt Thompson -- http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~thompsma/
    440 UCB, Boulder, CO  80309-0440
    JILA A510, 303-492-4662