Do you have a something to support the "much better Fortran support" comment? I don't think that comment is justified.
My impression is that GFortran is no worse than those 3 compilers, or any other available Fortran compiler. One popular Fortran benchmark (Polyhedron) supports that impression, see:
Note they're comparing the latest Inter Fortran compiler (v11) to a 3 year old GFortran (v4.4). GFortran in more recent GCC releases has further improved significantly. (NB, Lahey and Absoft are Open64-based, like PathScale).
Also performance wise GFortran isn't so bad, and still improving. See:
Posted Mar 23, 2012 19:51 UTC (Fri) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432)
[Link]
Does gfortran support Co-Array Fortran? I think it may support a limited form (intra-node only). I'm fuzzy on the details.
Certainly gfortran is improving but I wouldn't call it up to the same level of standards support as other Fortran compilers.
Continuity problems
Posted Mar 23, 2012 20:59 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
My impression is that GFortran is no worse than those 3 compilers, or any other available Fortran compiler. One popular Fortran benchmark (Polyhedron) supports that impression, see:
Have you actually looked on the links you've provided? Just count “Yes” and “No”.
GFortran is much better then it was just a few years ago but it's still far behind other implementations. Almost as much as C++11 support is ahead of the others.
Continuity problems
Posted Mar 29, 2012 11:34 UTC (Thu) by David.Duffy (subscriber, #63252)
[Link]
FWIW, for my code with Fortran 2003 features (73000 loc stats package), the executable GFortran produces is significantly faster than from the other 5 compilers I use.