forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index forums.silverfrost.com
Welcome to the Silverfrost forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

is v7.20 64-bit?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LitusSaxonicum



Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 2388
Location: Yateley, Hants, UK

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:16 pm    Post subject: is v7.20 64-bit? Reply with quote

Just out of interest, is version 7.20 64-bit? There's a hint in the note about INTEGER kind 7 being available.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mecej4



Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 1885

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That new integer is provided as a portable kind that has the same length as a pointer. It appears to be intended for readying current code containing pointers to the future 64-bit version of the compiler. In 7.20, INTEGER(kind=7) is probably the same as INTEGER(kind=3).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 7916
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, we are still working on porting to 64 bit. However, we are making good progress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
LitusSaxonicum



Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 2388
Location: Yateley, Hants, UK

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guessed that it would probably merit a major version number change!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John-Silver



Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 1520
Location: Aerospace Valley

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How extensive are the new image formats added for GET_DIB_SIZE@, GET_DIB_BLOCK@ and IMPORT_IMAGE@ in v7.2 ???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 7916
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the main focus is on jpg and png files but there may be others.
There is a reasonable chance that other image formats supported by GDI+ will work but I can not find a list of these via Google.

I will need time before I can give a more detailed response.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
JohnCampbell



Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 2554
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul,

Is there a possibility that ISO_FORTRAN_ENV could be included in the 64 bit version. This may give a standard way of addressing KIND although I am not sure that it provides an integer kind value that automatically chooses between 32 and 64 bit pointers.
It does provide names for integer and real kind that returns some recognisable portability to code.

John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanRRight



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 2813
Location: South Pole, Antarctica

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the major overhaul of compiler for the last 20 years (last was FTN77-FTN90). And probably for the next 40 until 128bit one. Some things like optimization or most of newer Fortran Standard features could be constantly added evolutionally later but it is important not to shoot itself into the foot and not to kill critical perspective possibilities which were missing most in FTN95:

1) Parallelization - OpenMP compatibility - most of other Fortrans do that
2) Same parallelization but on GPU level - compatibility with CUDA - here could lie the major road in computing
3) May be also Intel Fortran compatibility on the libraries level - most of other Fortrans are compatible, or better compatible then FTN95

I need 64bit compiler really ASAP but ready to wait if checking for these features needs more time. Checking is really important, the FTN90 for example was also a major flop in the history of software, real Shnobel Prize winner of world crappiest junk, until FTN95 overtook it and saved the face of company. But the whole decade was needed to debug FTN95. Hope 64bit one will be bugs-free from the start.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 7916
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The initial aim for the first beta version of 64 bit FTN95 will be to enable users to develop programs as before (generating 32 bit executables) but to add a "Release x64" mode for FTN95. The aim is to make this seamless - i.e. to make it work for all existing code without modification.

Having said this there will inevitably be some exceptions but few when compared to say using ClearWin+ with a third party compiler. Some very old FTN95/FTN77 routines can not be ported whilst, at the moment, SimpePlot is not available as a 64 bit DLL.

The initial aim means that there may not be /CHECK, /OPT or even /DEBUG in the early stages though the plan is to include these in due course.

Regarding new features, our immediate focus has to be on "porting" rather than "developing". This is simply because of the scale of the task and the associated need to avoid unnecessary changes to the FTN95 "frontend".

Hopefully we will be able to work through users' requests for new features and compatibility as time goes on and a reminder of these issues at a later date would be appreciated.

If FTN95 is an "old dog" then the initial aim is to get it to perform the same old tricks to a new audience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
LitusSaxonicum



Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 2388
Location: Yateley, Hants, UK

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't help but feel that Dan is a bit harsh on FTN90 as when it came out, nobody had any source code in Fortran 90 form anyway, plus the obvious defects in Fortran 90 needed to be rectified really quickly. Fortran 90 had been in gestation for a long time: it was originally known as 8X (I have Metcalf's incomprehensible book on it if anyone wants it) and for a brief moment in time it became 88 (to continue from 66 and 77) - something that probably went by the board on 1st January 1989.

As a long-time 66/77 user, my immediate reaction was that 90 was an attempt to produce a language that was as unlike Fortran as possible, and indeed, many of the facilities are a different way of doing something you could already do perfectly adequately. Deprecating some features was a way of saying that some outspoken folks on the committee didn't like them. My reactions were coloured by the fact that there was no standard for graphics (still not) and later, no standard for GUI building - things provided by FTNxx as a matter of course both in the DBOS version and then via Clearwin+.

With the benefit of hindsight, the changes in the standard were to create a consistency with the new features, but the whole raft of them simply had to make FTN90 initially less polished than FTN77: it was version 1 of all the new features - but the existing code base was of Fortran 66/77 so why did it matter so much?

Dan's list is of things that benefit some users. My list (if I had one) would put the things that would benefit most users at the top, and I can't help but feel that speedy compilation, good diagnostics, graphics and GUI are in there somewhere close to the top, and frankly, some improvements to the documentation could be there too! With the existing documentation format it is lack of completeness that bothers me most, but some other users need to be able to teach themselves Clearwin, and yet others don't understand Fortran! Even I don't consider the latter to be a solvable however good the documentation is ...

Perhaps in the light of Paul's invitation for users to provide a 'reminder', that it is time to resurrect a list of desirable things for future inclusion ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanRRight



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 2813
Location: South Pole, Antarctica

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Without /DEBUG or /CHECK i am dead 3 seconds after my pets, computer bugs or devils change a space in the program. I myself whole life do >3 typos and errors per single line Sad

Eddie, don't worry, I am sure 64bit compiler will keep all its golden features, otherwise there is no point to do upgrade, there is a lot of Fortran junk on the market for free. I was talking about added features important for survivability of this compiler basically forever as good Fortran compilers will never disappear until people stop programming.

And now i see and can bet $20 that you have not used FTN90 from its first versions. I did. That was a shock. Until now i can not get rid of some absurd i have to keep since then because i still need to keep compatibility with my older stuff. Can you imagine FORMAT not working or working on 10% of its features let alone extensions? Or when reading the comma between numbers is not recognized?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 7916
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems that I am not very good at making things clear.

/CHECK and /DEBUG may not be in the initial beta release but they will be added before long. With the 64 bit beta, development and testing would have to be done using the 32 bit functionality - test and develop on a small scale model and run on a large scale model.

Also please don't post requests for more features etc. now. It is not a good time to do this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
DanRRight



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 2813
Location: South Pole, Antarctica

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then seems i misunderstood, now it is clear. That indeed may work not bad initially.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aebolzan



Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 229
Location: La Plata, Argentina

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

PaulLaidler wrote:

Having said this there will inevitably be some exceptions but few when compared to say using ClearWin+ with a third party compiler. Some very old FTN95/FTN77 routines can not be ported whilst, at the moment, SimpePlot is not available as a 64 bit DLL.


Paul: I have noted that you wrote : "at the moment".....does it mean that the Simpleplot 64 bits is under development?

Agustin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 7916
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not that I know of.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index -> General All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group