On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 04:18:30PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote:
>
> I tested the fortran 95 results against the corresponding C results using
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> (for LIST in `ls x??f95.psc |sed 's?f95.psc??'`; do echo
> $LIST; diff ${LIST}c.psc ${LIST}f95.psc; done) |less
>
> Most examples agreed exactly. The exceptions were x06, x07, x20 and x21
> here is the start of the diff from example 6.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> diff x06f95.psc x06c.psc |head -20
> 6c6
> < %%CreationDate: Fri Aug 1 15:37:27 2008
> ---
> >%%CreationDate: Fri Aug 1 15:37:48 2008
> 217c217
> < -1.000 ( 0) SW
> ---
> >-1.000 (0) SW
> 219c219
> < ( 0) show
> ---
> >(0) show
> 253c253
> < -1.000 ( 10) SW
> ---
> >-1.000 (10) SW
> 255c255
> < ( 10) show
> ---
> >(10) show
>
> Why does the Fortran 95 version have leading blanks for the numbers? If we
> could solve that formatting issue, it appears both example 6 and 7 for
> Fortran 95 would be identical to the corresponding C examples. In contrast
> the differences for examples 20 and 21 are numerical rather than format
> issues. Those examples may just require some reprogramming to identically
> follow the C template.
>
The difference is just to do with the way fortran formats integers. The
f77 version of example 6 and 7 already had a workaround. I've added this
to the f95 versions as well. Results are now identical to C.
I've not had a chance to look at example 20 or 21 yet.
Andrew
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Plplot-devel mailing list
Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
