Fortran Programming Language :: Have any compiler compatible with 2003 standards?


	Have any compiler compatible with 2003 standards? I 'm a newer, may be a stupid question... Now, have any compiler compatible with 2003 standards? I plans to use o-o.... li.sim@gmail.com wrote: > I 'm a newer, may be a stupid question... > Now, have any compiler compatible with 2003 standards? I plans to use > o-o.... None yet 100 percent. Many or most have some 2003 features, some have many. IVF (Intel), PVF (Portland Group), LF95 (Lahey), FTN95 (Silverfrost/Salford), NAG all (and others) have some 2003 features. -- Gary Scott mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org -OR- Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows it can't be done. -- Henry Ford On May 15, 8:25 am, Gary Scott <garylsc@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > li.sim@gmail.com wrote: > > I 'm a newer, may be a stupid question... > > Now, have any compiler compatible with 2003 standards? I plans to use > > o-o.... > None yet 100 percent. Many or most have some 2003 features, some have > many. IVF (Intel), PVF (Portland Group), LF95 (Lahey), FTN95 > (Silverfrost/Salford), NAG all (and others) have some 2003 features. That may be true, but I think it is a little misleading. My understanding is that the developers of Silverfrost/Salford and LF95 have decided NOT to implement the full F2003 standard, but IVF and NAG have decided to do so. I don't know about Portland. Silverfrost/ Salford does not implement the allocatable array TR, which would be one of the first things a developer of a F2003 compiler would implement. On May 15, 7:37 am, Beliavsky <beliav@aol.com> wrote: - Hide quoted text - > On May 15, 8:25 am, Gary Scott <garylsc@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > li.sim@gmail.com wrote: > > > I 'm a newer, may be a stupid question... > > > Now, have any compiler compatible with 2003 standards? I plans to use > > > o-o.... > > None yet 100 percent. Many or most have some 2003 features, some have > > many. IVF (Intel), PVF (Portland Group), LF95 (Lahey), FTN95 > > (Silverfrost/Salford), NAG all (and others) have some 2003 features. > That may be true, but I think it is a little misleading. My > understanding is that the developers of Silverfrost/Salford and LF95 > have decided NOT to implement the full F2003 standard, but IVF and NAG > have decided to do so. I don't know about Portland. Silverfrost/ > Salford does not implement the allocatable array TR, which would be > one of the first things a developer of a F2003 compiler would > implement. Yes, I intended to include that note about Lahey and Silverfrost/ Salford, but got distracted by need to leave for work.