View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
silicondale
Joined: 15 Mar 2007 Posts: 252 Location: Matlock, Derbyshire, UK
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
silverfrost Site Admin
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 Posts: 191 Location: Manchester
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It certainly looks interesting |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DanRRight
Joined: 10 Mar 2008 Posts: 2826 Location: South Pole, Antarctica
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agree. All topics are from the top. Organizers seems are really smart. They should consider this in other places in the world |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silicondale
Joined: 15 Mar 2007 Posts: 252 Location: Matlock, Derbyshire, UK
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have booked. It clashes with another conference which I had been planning to attend, but this one seems more interesting! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DanRRight
Joined: 10 Mar 2008 Posts: 2826 Location: South Pole, Antarctica
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
As a comment or request for future development I'd like to Silverfrost to look at "NetCDF and HDF5 scientific file formats for data sharing in Fortran". Reading and writing directly into HDF5 compressed files will become an important topic with 64bit computing with its TBytes of I/O data
If not the Unicode text fonts used in open source PlPlot i'd possibly looked at it as a substitution of our ugly, buggy, crappy, dead Simpleplot in %pl. The package is not abandoned like many many others, its 3D plotting capabilities look nice, and since it is open-source the users can modify it and would never stuck in the no-go situation like with Simpleplot |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silicondale
Joined: 15 Mar 2007 Posts: 252 Location: Matlock, Derbyshire, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would certainly agree about HDF5. Am currently in early stages of a 4-year project that will generate terabytes of data, and frankly worried about handling such data volumes efficiently!
I agree, Dan, about improving the graphics options. I don't use Simpleplot, and have mostly coded my own 2D and 3D graphics including SVG and VRML export interfaces, but it would be nice to stop banging my head against various brick walls! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulLaidler Site Admin
Joined: 21 Feb 2005 Posts: 7932 Location: Salford, UK
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have made a note of Dan's request.
Simfit provides some 3D drawing facilities, see FTN95 help->Win32 platform->ClearWin+->SIMFIT->Simfit plotting styles. (The images don't show up for me when using the online help so you may need to open FTN95.chm to see them.)
SVG file output is available with ClearWin+. Documentation will be provided in the next release. Let me know if you want the information now. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silicondale
Joined: 15 Mar 2007 Posts: 252 Location: Matlock, Derbyshire, UK
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paul - thanks for the news about SVG export. Useful, as it's likely to be more general than my own, which was limited to just the functionality I needed at the time. Will take a look at the SIMFIT graphics, thx for the reminder!
One other simple question (commercial rather than technical). About to buy the upgrade, but there doesn't seem to be any "1yr updates" option as there is with a new purchase. Does it come with or without updates? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silverfrost Site Admin
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 Posts: 191 Location: Manchester
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2016 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
The upgrade doesn't come with updates. If you would like to buy an upgrade with updates then we can send you a quote. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John-Silver
Joined: 30 Jul 2013 Posts: 1520 Location: Aerospace Valley
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's the situation wrt 64bit version and the pricing strategy ?
Is 64bit & 32 bt included in the FTN95 package ?
I see no mention of it at all on the 'Buy Me Now' page
Oh and 1yr updates seems to be a bit surplus to requirements as for the last years or so the updates have been every 'just over 1 yr' so presumeably buyers wouldn't qualify for an updated version !? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silverfrost Site Admin
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 Posts: 191 Location: Manchester
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
The 64-bit version is now included in FTN95. I have amended the description to reflect this.
It did take quite a bit longer to finish the 64-bit compiler than we thought it would. Quite a bit longer. Anyone who bought 7.20 with a year of updates is entitled to 8.00. Now we have a 64-bit compiler updates will be more regular. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JohnCampbell
Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 2556 Location: Sydney
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
and I would like to say thanks for this 64 bit version. I have found it very robust for the 64 bit codes I have been testing and the ease of getting more memory for the clearwin+ applications has been great.
I have also been beta testing the vector routines and find then a good addition for performance. I hope they can be finalised soon.
I hope others find it similar.
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
silicondale
Joined: 15 Mar 2007 Posts: 252 Location: Matlock, Derbyshire, UK
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have now downloaded all the documents associated with this workshop (links are all here: http://www.nag.co.uk/content/fortran-modernization-workshop). One of them is a comparison of compilers - they compare features of 9 different compilers but Silverfrost is not one of them. The list was prepared by Polyhedron Solutions, who at one time actually sold the Salford/Silverfrost compiler. Maybe worth asking them to extend the list ?
One other question (maybe asked and answered before) - any current plans to develop Fortran 2003 or 2008 versions of the Silverfrost compiler? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LitusSaxonicum
Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 2390 Location: Yateley, Hants, UK
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Polyhedron benchmarks are no longer so prominent on their website, but after a search I see that FTN95 v 7.20 has been used on a 64 bit version of Windows.
I imagine that using SSE etc may lead to different roundoffs between 32 and 64 bit versions of FTN95 as well as differences in performance. Has anyone run the Polyhedron benchmarks to compare 32 and 64 bit versions of FTN95? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mecej4
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 1888
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: |
|
|
LitusSaxonicum wrote: | Has anyone run the Polyhedron benchmarks to compare 32 and 64 bit versions of FTN95? |
I don't think that it is useful to do so yet.
The Polyhedron performance benchmarks emphasize FPU performance. The 64-bit compiler does not support /opt yet, and the 32-bit compiler can only generate x87 instructions.
The Polyhedron diagnostics benchmarks can only be run with the 32-bit FTN95 compiler, since the 64-bit compiler does not yet support /undef, etc. The results for the 32-bit compiler are posted on the Polyhedron/AdeptScience/Fortran.uk pages. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|