[Simh] Crowther's Adventure game

[Kenneth Seefried]

From: Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com>

Hey Clem...thanks for the input.  Definitely enjoying the last couple of
weeks discourse with Bliss and Fortran.  Good times they were.

>On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Kenneth Seefried <kjseefried at gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Have you looked at the Intel Fortran compiler (
https://software.intel.com/
>> en-us/fortran-compilers)?

> ​Indeed and it has the added advantage of 'having the DEC compiler DNA
> ground up and injected back in' to quote a retired Intel Fellow (Rich
Grove
> - who had lead the Gem compiler at DEC).  A number of the same people are
> still developing it (*i.e*. those that have not yet retired).

Yes, but didn't you say that (unfortunately) only a fraction of that DNA
made it in, and that nothing like GEM level sophistication still exists?

> It is the most popular of the Fortran compilers for the HPC community and
> the commercial ISV's that still have code in Fortran.

I wouldn't dispute that, per se, but the IBM Fortran compiler for POWER
(collectively AIX & zOS) is a pretty formidable beast as well.  If I had
more access to it, I'd be interested in some compare and contrast.  Power8
& Power9 still potentially have legs in the HPC world, I would think.

Speaking of...know anything about the NEC Fortran compiler targeting SX?
I've got a friend in the geotechnical field who raves, but he can't share
much (obviously).  Interesting machine, the SX.

Since we're on the subject...wonder what happened to the compiler tech from
the CDC Cyber that evolved through 7x->170->180->180/990->203/205->ETA.  We
had a 990 at GaTech, and UGA ended up with a 205 for reasons that mystify
to this day.  Should research that some day.

> There is great care to try to ensure old code from old systems 'just
work'
> as well as bring in modern Fortran features.

Indeed.  The code I referenced originally was work I did in '80s era Cray
Fortran for the XMP/YMP boxes.  Pre-co-arrays, I believe (at least I wasn't
using them).  The Intel compiler had no trouble with it.  Just had to strip
out the VMS-isms that the front-ends needed.

> Modern Fortran BTW, is from a syntax stand point, nothing like what
> I was taught in the late 60s/early 70s.

Ha!  Nor what I was taught in the late 70s & 80s.  Very different beast
now, but not without charms.  The parallel intrinsics are pretty nifty.

> The point is that Intel takes Fortran seriously, since the codes that come
> out of the compiler sells real silicon,  which of course is what Intel
> fundamentally does - sell expensive, hot rocks to run real codes.

So glad to hear that, and I've heard the IBM Power guys say the same thing
about their Fortran efforts.  Basically nothing really shows off what a
SIMD instruction set can do that's accessible to 'normal' programmers like
Fortran.  Or so they say.  Maybe we just have a soft spot.

Cheers.

KJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/attachments/20180205/9ab0c5d5/attachment.html>