XPost: comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++
From: garylscott@sbcglobal.net
On 1/27/2026 3:04 AM, Michael S wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 01:46:43 -0600
> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 1/27/2026 12:45 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro schrieb:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:47:33 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a story where he wrote a Fortran compiler, which failed
>>>>> tests and was therefore not accepted, and he refused to fix the
>>>>> bugs.
>>>>
>>>> Who was dumb enough to buy that?
>>>
>>> They didn't, it was not accepted.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the story itself seems to have vanished from the
>>> Internet, or at least I cannot find it with Google any more.
>>
>> If I remember correctly, Microsoft licensed somebody else's Fortran
>> 90 compiler and relabeled it.
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>
> There is a big chance that you don't remember correctly.
> At least it is different, not to say opposite, from the story that I
> read in other places.
> They say that when Microsoft found out that support for F90 is
> necessary for continuation of their Fortran business then they
> decided that their compilers stuff has more important things to
> do. So they sold their compiler sources and Powerstation brand to
> Digital that later became Compaq and later yet before merger with HP
> sold it to Intel where it either replaced Intel's own Fortran compiler
> or was merged with it. The last part of the story is not conclusive.
>
re: Intel: Merged is more accurate. Mostly the "front end" was
retained and adjusted to produce the intel "back end" format.
I used Powerstation 1.0 and 4.0 with some success. Yes, they were both
buggy, but I was able to work around any issues I found.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
