Privacy and Security Notice

Archived Messages for CLAS_OFFLINE@cebaf.gov: Re: Portland Group Fortran and C compilers for Linux

Re: Portland Group Fortran and C compilers for Linux

Ian Bird (igb@CEBAF.GOV)
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:30:41 -0500

I am just looking at the new version of Absoft. This comes as a package with
f77, f90 compilers and a debugger. This version will link with g77 and gcc
compiled code, it can deal with VAX extensions and the debugger understands
it's own fortran AND gcc/g77 output. It therefore will link with the g77
cernlib and the debugger is better than gdb (since it handles all the above).
Since this seems to solve all the needs for a Linux fortran compiler for both
CLAS and Hall A (and presumable Hall C) I propose that this is what we would
use on the central (computer center) Linux systems - very soon to expand to
another (dual processor) ifarm machine + 10 dual processor farm machines.

It also has documentation!.

Ian

CLAS library wrote:

> On Linux we use the GNU C and FORTRAN compilers (gcc and g77
> respectively). These compilers work fine but g77 has some
> limitations:
>
> a) No access to variables contained in common block from the debugger
> (actually no "easy" access, there is a way that I have yet to
> make work....but I'll let you know when I do)
> b) Lack of support for many VAX extensions, like structures (shudder)
> c) Slow progress, the present version of g77 is 0.5.21 Yes it hasn't
> even made it to beta yet and we are using it for analysis (well at
> least some of us are).
>
> The main problem I see is item a) which will really hinder debugging
> efforts on Linux boxes.
>
> There are several commercial compilers (C and FORTRAN) for Linux and I
> was interested in trying them to see if they address any of the issues
> and I just wanted to see how efficient g77 compiled code is.
>
> I contacted the Portland Group (PGI) for a test suite (actually I was
> attempting to
> purchase a license but the price overran the JLAB credit card, not
> that it is expensive just that we have a low limit on credit card
> purchases) so instead they offered a two week trial.
>
> The installation was a piece of cake and PGI is to be commended for
> making a product that works with and doesn't break existing compilers.
>
> I trial run on a simple prime number generator showed that the PGI
> compiled code was actually a bit slower than g77. I then linked
> the CLAS
> reconstruction code with PGI compilers. The fortran code linked without a
> hitch. The C code barfed and I could not decode the warning to figure
> out which PGI flag to throw. So I returned to gcc for the C code.
>
> On 5000 REAL data events the reconstruction code compiled with the PGI
> compiler was slightly faster than g77
>
> O-flag PGI g77
> -O2 16.149 18.246
> -O3 16.109 18.289 millisec/event
>
> To test item a) I compiled the prime number code with the -g flag and
> tried ddd/gdb on the executible....this failed. One of PGI products
> is a debugger but this was not part of the test suite....
>
> Summary, the PGI FORTRAN compiler offers some advantage over g77, for
> example: Professional documentation, FORTRAN 90 support plus many
> VAX extenstions. Unfortunately the one area they could really blow
> away g77, professional debugger, was untestable. The resulting
> executibles are ~10% faster than those compiled with g77.
>
> Just thought I'd let you all know.....
>
> --