Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!wieslauf.sub.de!.POSTED!reversiblemaps.ath.cx!not-for-mail
From: Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: gfortran equivalency of ifort?
Date: 30 Apr 2011 09:20:08 GMT
Organization: Dis (not Dat) Organisation
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <ipgk88$pfa$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx>
References: <a4a34dce-b4c8-4ce0-8c7f-686b1f267e43@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> <io7b70$2qn$2@speranza.aioe.org> <r63kr65g885mrl46ec4fkkfphjcrvg1laa@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: Wk8PyTvLHfx9YaNov58aSw.user.wieslauf.sub.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@wieslauf.sub.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:30:43 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
X-Face: ?)Aw4rXwN5u0~$nqKj`xPz>xHCwgi^q+^?Ri*+R(&uv2=E1Q0Zk(>h!~o2ID@6{uf8s;a +M[5[U[QT7xFN%^gR"=tuJw%TXXR'Fp~W;(T"1(739R%m0Yyyv*gkGoPA.$b,D.w:z+<'"=-lVT?6 {T?=R^:W5g|E2#EhjKCa+nt":4b}dU7GYB*HBxn&Td$@f%.kl^:7X8rQWd[NTc"P"u6nkisze/Q;8 "9Z{peQF,w)7UjV$c|RO/mQW/NMgWfr5*$-Z%u46"/00mx-,\R'fLPe.)^
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SE9i4G6AOK0obXxI8M1sSRZIy+Q=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.os.linux.development.apps:103

On 2011-04-29, Philipp Thomas <kthomas@linux01.gwdg.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:34:24 -0400, Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Linux is perfectly capable of compiling Fortran source without Intel's help.
>
> Yeah, but Intels compilers produce much better performing code than
> GCC. So if you're in a business where performance counts such as
> number crunching you'll want the Intel compilers.

I know it's popular, but is fortran really the best language for heavy
duty number crunching. I guess if you're stuck with it that's another
matter.



-- 
⚂⚃ 100% natural