Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #122138 > unrolled thread

converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 15:06 -0500
    Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++         program to C++, part 2 Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-04-08 20:34 -0400
      Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 14:48 -0500
        Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 12:11 +0300
          Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 14:31 -0500
    Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 23:08 -0700
      Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 14:50 -0500
    Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-09 07:18 +0000
      Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 14:48 -0500
        Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-10 00:35 +0000
          Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 14:39 -0500
            Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-10 19:52 +0000
              Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:34 -0500
        Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:37 +0200
          Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2025-04-11 16:00 +0000
            Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 12:25 -0400
              Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2025-04-11 16:57 +0000
            Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 15:44 -0500
            Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 15:47 -0500
              Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 17:59 -0500
                Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-13 23:10 +0000
                  Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 23:50 -0500
                    Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:14 +0000
                      Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 18:28 -0500
                        Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:19 -0600
                          Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 13:16 -0500
                        Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-16 07:44 +0000
                          Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2025-04-16 17:24 +0000
                            Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov> - 2025-04-17 12:24 +0200
                              Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2025-04-17 15:06 +0000
                          Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 13:17 -0500
            Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 18:29 -0500
              Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> - 2026-09-22 04:48 -0500
                Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> - 2026-09-22 04:58 -0500
                  Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-09-22 15:51 -0500
              Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-24 16:14 +0000
                Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 15:14 -0500
                  Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-09-25 06:29 +0000
                Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-24 23:58 +0000
                  Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:59 -0700
                    Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-25 14:53 +0000
              Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 16:12 -0700
    Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2 Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 00:14 -0500

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#122138 — converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2

On 11/23/2022 5:36 PM, Tran Quoc Viet wrote:
 > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 1:01:25 PM UTC+7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
 >> We are converting a 700,000+ Fortran 77 lines of code plus 50,000+ C++
 >> lines of code engineering software product to C++. With all that code,
 >> we produce four Win32 EXEs and three Win32 DLLs. My goal is to add four
 >> Win64 EXEs and three Win64 DLLs to the product with the same
 >> capabilities as the Win32 versions (console, windowed, Excel callable,
 >> Excel embeddable). Plus support for Unicode named files and Unicode
 >> file paths.
 >>
 >> I am using a customized version of f2c at the moment to automate 80% of
 >> the conversion from F77 to C++. I have added support for logical*8,
 >> changed the output file from *.c to *.cpp, added an include for the
 >> Fable fem.hpp template library, removed the trailing underscores from
 >> the subroutine and common block names, removed the ftnlen arguments from
 >> the character arguments, converted all F77 comments to the // instead of
 >> the /* */, and a few other items. If desired, I am willing to post a
 >> copy of my modified f2c on my website with the source code.
 >> https://netlib.org/f2c/
 >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2c
 >>
 >> f2c does not get me totally there. The Fortran character strings were
 >> poorly handled so they will probably needed fixing for proper sizing and
 >> alignment. The f2c i/o code is crap so I take the original F77 i/o code
 >> and translate it by hand. The arrays in the argument list are still
 >> based at an index of one so I convert those to base index of zero by
 >> hand. All of the local and common block arrays were converted to a base
 >> index of zero by f2c. I add the new *.cpp file to my Visual Studio
 >> project. I then add the new function prototypes to my prototypes.h file
 >> and I add any new common block structures to my commons.h file. I then
 >> compile and fix until I get a clean compile.
 >>
 >> I have converted over 29,000 lines of F77 code to C++ now. Almost a
 >> hundred subroutines and several dozen common blocks. Most are compiling
 >> cleanly in Visual C++ 2015. My testing is working well with the
 >> problems being in the character string area. I am still aiming for
 >> Christmas for completing the small data analysis program in my
 >> calculation engine. It is somewhere around 150,000 lines of F77 code.
 >> Tough to tell since it shares so much code with my big calculation
 >> engine which is around 600,000 lines of F77 code and 50,000 lines of
 >> C++. They share about 75,000 lines of F77 and C++ code.
 >>
 >> Thanks,
 >> Lynn

 > Thank you for sharing your experience on that tough work. For years I 
 > had also paid lots of effort to convert all F77 codes to modern 
Fortran and I stopped that job because I found its nonsense. Is that how 
we are removing Fortran from its world?

 > I am having problems mixing C++ and Fortran code in Visual Studio so I
 > am trying to move to all C++. I suspect if I was all Fortran then my
 > life would be easier.

 > Lynn

I am back on this project again.  I have converted over 100,000 lines of 
the F77 code to C++ now and am debugging character string issues.

I tried GFortran and GCC with Simply Fortran for a long while but the 
debugging is simply horrible.  And I was rewriting too much of the C++ 
code from F77 to F2003+.

Lynn

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#122139 — Re: converting a 700,000+ line Fortran 77 plus 50,000+ line C++ program to C++, part 2

Lynn McGuire writes:

> I am back on this project again.  I have converted over 100,000 lines of the  
> F77 code to C++ now and am debugging character string issues.

Thanks for the update. Good job. Here's a cookie for you. Keep up the good  
work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122143

On 4/8/2025 7:34 PM, Sam wrote:
> Lynn McGuire writes:
> 
>> I am back on this project again.  I have converted over 100,000 lines 
>> of the F77 code to C++ now and am debugging character string issues.
> 
> Thanks for the update. Good job. Here's a cookie for you. Keep up the 
> good work.

Sigh, the virtual cookie sucked.  And I am on a diet and not supposed to 
eat cookies for a long while.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122149

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:48:59 -0500
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/8/2025 7:34 PM, Sam wrote:
> > Lynn McGuire writes:
> >   
> >> I am back on this project again.  I have converted over 100,000
> >> lines of the F77 code to C++ now and am debugging character string
> >> issues.  
> > 
> > Thanks for the update. Good job. Here's a cookie for you. Keep up
> > the good work.  
> 
> Sigh, the virtual cookie sucked.  And I am on a diet and not supposed
> to eat cookies for a long while.
> 
> Lynn
> 

If I understand the poster Sam correctly, he wanted to tell you that if
you don't keep him updated about progress of your conversion project
then he wouldn't be terribly upset.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122150

On 4/10/2025 4:11 AM, Michael S wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:48:59 -0500
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/8/2025 7:34 PM, Sam wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire writes:
>>>    
>>>> I am back on this project again.  I have converted over 100,000
>>>> lines of the F77 code to C++ now and am debugging character string
>>>> issues.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the update. Good job. Here's a cookie for you. Keep up
>>> the good work.
>>
>> Sigh, the virtual cookie sucked.  And I am on a diet and not supposed
>> to eat cookies for a long while.
>>
>> Lynn
>>
> 
> If I understand the poster Sam correctly, he wanted to tell you that if
> you don't keep him updated about progress of your conversion project
> then he wouldn't be terribly upset.

Yup, I got his sarcasm message.  But I am trying to add some content to 
the group.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122140

On 4/8/2025 1:06 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/23/2022 5:36 PM, Tran Quoc Viet wrote:
>  > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 1:01:25 PM UTC+7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>  >> We are converting a 700,000+ Fortran 77 lines of code plus 50,000+ C++
[...]
> I am back on this project again.  I have converted over 100,000 lines of 
> the F77 code to C++ now and am debugging character string issues.
> 
> I tried GFortran and GCC with Simply Fortran for a long while but the 
> debugging is simply horrible.  And I was rewriting too much of the C++ 
> code from F77 to F2003+.

Good luck!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122144

On 4/9/2025 1:08 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/8/2025 1:06 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 11/23/2022 5:36 PM, Tran Quoc Viet wrote:
>>  > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 1:01:25 PM UTC+7, Lynn McGuire 
>> wrote:
>>  >> We are converting a 700,000+ Fortran 77 lines of code plus 50,000+ 
>> C++
> [...]
>> I am back on this project again.  I have converted over 100,000 lines 
>> of the F77 code to C++ now and am debugging character string issues.
>>
>> I tried GFortran and GCC with Simply Fortran for a long while but the 
>> debugging is simply horrible.  And I was rewriting too much of the C++ 
>> code from F77 to F2003+.
> 
> Good luck!

Thanks, gonna need it.  The conversion of Fortran character strings to 
C++ strings is killing me.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122141

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:06:06 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> I tried GFortran and GCC with Simply Fortran for a long while but the
> debugging is simply horrible.

Have you tried using the GNU tools (gfortran, gcc, gdb etc) directly, 
leaving out the Simply Fortran middleman?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122142

On 4/9/2025 2:18 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:06:06 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> 
>> I tried GFortran and GCC with Simply Fortran for a long while but the
>> debugging is simply horrible.
> 
> Have you tried using the GNU tools (gfortran, gcc, gdb etc) directly,
> leaving out the Simply Fortran middleman?

No, we want to get away from compiling and linking directly.  That is 
what we use with Open Watcom F77 and C++.

With over 5,000 subroutines, each in their own file, keeping track of 
everything is difficult on a good day.

Thanks,
Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122148

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:48:12 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 4/9/2025 2:18 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:06:06 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> 
>>> I tried GFortran and GCC with Simply Fortran for a long while but the
>>> debugging is simply horrible.
>> 
>> Have you tried using the GNU tools (gfortran, gcc, gdb etc) directly,
>> leaving out the Simply Fortran middleman?
> 
> No, we want to get away from compiling and linking directly.  That is
> what we use with Open Watcom F77 and C++.
> 
> With over 5,000 subroutines, each in their own file, keeping track of
> everything is difficult on a good day.

This is why you have build systems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122151

On 4/9/2025 7:35 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:48:12 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> 
>> On 4/9/2025 2:18 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:06:06 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> I tried GFortran and GCC with Simply Fortran for a long while but the
>>>> debugging is simply horrible.
>>>
>>> Have you tried using the GNU tools (gfortran, gcc, gdb etc) directly,
>>> leaving out the Simply Fortran middleman?
>>
>> No, we want to get away from compiling and linking directly.  That is
>> what we use with Open Watcom F77 and C++.
>>
>> With over 5,000 subroutines, each in their own file, keeping track of
>> everything is difficult on a good day.
> 
> This is why you have build systems.

I started using the first IDE (interactive development environment) in 
1983 ??? with Turbo Pascal.  $49 IIRC.  It was a simply amazing way of 
doing things.  Nowadays, Visual Studio comes closest to the Turbo Pascal 
IDE but even it is not quite there.  Visual Studios lack of a decent 
Fortran compiler sucks.

I moved back to build systems on the Apollo Domain in 1989 using DSEE 
but it was a downer compared to Turbo Pascal.  It did allow multiple 
user development teams to work together though.  We only had a few 
hallway fights on code conflicts, most were resolved by DSEE.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122152

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 14:39:02 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 4/9/2025 7:35 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> This is why you have build systems.
> 
> I started using the first IDE (interactive development environment) in
> 1983 ??? with Turbo Pascal.  $49 IIRC.  It was a simply amazing way of
> doing things.  Nowadays, Visual Studio comes closest to the Turbo Pascal
> IDE but even it is not quite there.  Visual Studios lack of a decent
> Fortran compiler sucks.

IDEs tend to be limited in their build systems. They’re not flexible: they 
insist you build things their way.

> I moved back to build systems on the Apollo Domain in 1989 using DSEE
> but it was a downer compared to Turbo Pascal.  It did allow multiple
> user development teams to work together though.  We only had a few
> hallway fights on code conflicts, most were resolved by DSEE.

Back in the day, we called them “CASE tools”, and they cost €€€. Nowadays, 
they are just “developer tools”, and they are part of the standard package 
repositories.

The one thing Git does better than any other VCS is merging branches. No 
more hallway fights ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122153

On 4/10/2025 2:52 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 14:39:02 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> 
>> On 4/9/2025 7:35 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> This is why you have build systems.
>>
>> I started using the first IDE (interactive development environment) in
>> 1983 ??? with Turbo Pascal.  $49 IIRC.  It was a simply amazing way of
>> doing things.  Nowadays, Visual Studio comes closest to the Turbo Pascal
>> IDE but even it is not quite there.  Visual Studios lack of a decent
>> Fortran compiler sucks.
> 
> IDEs tend to be limited in their build systems. They’re not flexible: they
> insist you build things their way.
> 
>> I moved back to build systems on the Apollo Domain in 1989 using DSEE
>> but it was a downer compared to Turbo Pascal.  It did allow multiple
>> user development teams to work together though.  We only had a few
>> hallway fights on code conflicts, most were resolved by DSEE.
> 
> Back in the day, we called them “CASE tools”, and they cost €€€. Nowadays,
> they are just “developer tools”, and they are part of the standard package
> repositories.
> 
> The one thing Git does better than any other VCS is merging branches. No
> more hallway fights ...

One of my items on my long term plan is to move from CVSNT to Git.  I am 
so tired of CVSNT's blowing up a code merge, usually comments.  I have 
about 22,000 files being versioned at the moment.  We have been using 
CVSNT since 1993 or so.  Some files have over 600+ versions so the move 
will not be trivial.

There are only three of us software developers here so we do not have 
many code merge problems.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122154

Am 09.04.2025 um 21:48 schrieb Lynn McGuire:

> No, we want to get away from compiling and linking directly.
> That is what we use with Open Watcom F77 and C++.

The Watcom stuff is totally outdated.
Is there no way to get something newer ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122155

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:37:17 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:

> Am 09.04.2025 um 21:48 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
> 
>> No, we want to get away from compiling and linking directly.
>> That is what we use with Open Watcom F77 and C++.
> 
> The Watcom stuff is totally outdated.
> Is there no way to get something newer ?

You must be new here in c.l.f.  Lynn has been converting
his 700 KLOC of Fortran to C++ for 2+ decades.  It seems
his code, which clearly isn't Fortran, can only be compiled
by a Watcom language compiler.  For those playing along,
that's roughy converting 140 lines of code per workday
with 2 weeks for good behavior (ie., 700000 / (50*5*20)).

-- 
steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122156

On 4/11/25 12:00, Steven G. Kargl wrote:
...
> You must be new here in c.l.f.  Lynn has been converting
> his 700 KLOC of Fortran to C++ for 2+ decades.  It seems
> his code, which clearly isn't Fortran, can only be compiled

This is cross-posted to comp.lang.c++, which is where I'm seeing it.
It's not very important, but I'm curious as to what about his code makes
it clearly not Fortran code. Has he conceded that it isn't actually
fortran? The Subject of this thread implies otherwise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122157

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 12:25:53 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:

> On 4/11/25 12:00, Steven G. Kargl wrote:
> ...
>> You must be new here in c.l.f.  Lynn has been converting
>> his 700 KLOC of Fortran to C++ for 2+ decades.  It seems
>> his code, which clearly isn't Fortran, can only be compiled
> 
> This is cross-posted to comp.lang.c++, which is where I'm seeing it.
> It's not very important, but I'm curious as to what about his code makes
> it clearly not Fortran code. Has he conceded that it isn't actually
> fortran? The Subject of this thread implies otherwise.

Vendor extensions.

We have here a classic example of code, purportedly written
in a language with an international standard, doomed by 
vendor lock-in.

-- 
steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122158

On 4/11/2025 11:00 AM, Steven G. Kargl wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:37:17 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> 
>> Am 09.04.2025 um 21:48 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
>>
>>> No, we want to get away from compiling and linking directly.
>>> That is what we use with Open Watcom F77 and C++.
>>
>> The Watcom stuff is totally outdated.
>> Is there no way to get something newer ?
> 
> You must be new here in c.l.f.  Lynn has been converting
> his 700 KLOC of Fortran to C++ for 2+ decades.  It seems
> his code, which clearly isn't Fortran, can only be compiled
> by a Watcom language compiler.  For those playing along,
> that's roughy converting 140 lines of code per workday
> with 2 weeks for good behavior (ie., 700000 / (50*5*20)).

My Fortran code worked just fine using the Unix f77 compiler while I was 
supporting our Sun, HP UX, and Apollo Domain users.  I think that I used 
the CC compiler back then for our C code before we started adding C++ 
code in the 2000s after our users all moved to Windows.  Been a long 
time though, early to late 1990s.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122159

On 4/11/2025 11:00 AM, Steven G. Kargl wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:37:17 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> 
>> Am 09.04.2025 um 21:48 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
>>
>>> No, we want to get away from compiling and linking directly.
>>> That is what we use with Open Watcom F77 and C++.
>>
>> The Watcom stuff is totally outdated.
>> Is there no way to get something newer ?
> 
> You must be new here in c.l.f.  Lynn has been converting
> his 700 KLOC of Fortran to C++ for 2+ decades.  It seems
> his code, which clearly isn't Fortran, can only be compiled
> by a Watcom language compiler.  For those playing along,
> that's roughy converting 140 lines of code per workday
> with 2 weeks for good behavior (ie., 700000 / (50*5*20)).

Don't forget maintenance (bug fixing) and user needed new features that 
require about 60 to 70% of our time.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122166

On 4/11/2025 3:47 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 4/11/2025 11:00 AM, Steven G. Kargl wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:37:17 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>
>>> Am 09.04.2025 um 21:48 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
>>>
>>>> No, we want to get away from compiling and linking directly.
>>>> That is what we use with Open Watcom F77 and C++.
>>>
>>> The Watcom stuff is totally outdated.
>>> Is there no way to get something newer ?
>>
>> You must be new here in c.l.f.  Lynn has been converting
>> his 700 KLOC of Fortran to C++ for 2+ decades.  It seems
>> his code, which clearly isn't Fortran, can only be compiled
>> by a Watcom language compiler.  For those playing along,
>> that's roughy converting 140 lines of code per workday
>> with 2 weeks for good behavior (ie., 700000 / (50*5*20)).
> 
> Don't forget maintenance (bug fixing) and user needed new features that 
> require about 60 to 70% of our time.
> 
> Lynn

And don't forget that we spent a lot of time updating the code by 
converting all of the Hollerith characters to character strings.  And 
adding "IMPLICIT NONE" to all of the subroutines requiring the explicit 
typing of all of the variables (maybe 10% were typed before due to 
extensive usage of implicit typing rules).

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web