From: Dave Love <d DOT love AT dl DOT ac DOT uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Netlib code [was Re: flops...]
Date: 17 Feb 1997 18:15:50 +0000
Organization: Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington WA4 4AD, UK
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <rzqlo8n1ep5.fsf@djlvig.dl.ac.uk>
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970208044630 DOT 1946B-100000 AT aditya DOT unigoa DOT ernet DOT in>     <5dh4gi$ek9$1 AT superb DOT csc DOT ti DOT com>     <1997Feb12 DOT 130129 DOT 27922 AT indyvax DOT iupui DOT edu> <5du4c0$kor$1 AT superb DOT csc DOT ti DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: djlvig.dl.ac.uk
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

>>>>> "Jesse" == Jesse Bennett <jesse AT lenny DOT dseg DOT ti DOT com> writes:

 Jesse> The sad thing (to me) is that well written C can perform at
 Jesse> least as well (and often better) than equivalent Fortran code
 Jesse> in numerical analysis applications.

You mean there's some feature of C that makes it possible to optimize
better than `equivalent' numerical Fortran with all the support F95
provides for performance (especially in parallel)?  Which one?

[The next version of G77 will specifically take advantage of the
Fortran no-alias semantics to do optimizations which aren't possible
for standard C.]

-- 
ALGOL 60 is alive and well and living in FORTRAN 90.  -- Tony Hoare