(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4192) WG5 Las Vegas Feb-2010/J3 m191 minutes 10-144

[Van Snyder]

On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:17 -0800, Bill Long wrote:
> 
> Craig Rasmussen wrote:
> > ....  Since we  
> > use Pathscale and PGI compilers (in addition to other vendors  
> > represented on J3), it is pretty clear that LANL developers are more  
> > interested in performance than features.

> Regarding vendors like PGI, they will implement what the customers with 
> money want implemented. Conformance to new standards is not their top 
> priority. They only recently made it up to f95 + the allocatable TR.  If 
> you want f03 or f08 features, you have to demand them as a customer. 
> Doing so would be a service to the wider community in better enabling 
> portability.

We tried PGI several years ago and instantly noticed they hadn't done
initially-nullified pointers, either as variables or as
default-initialized components.  We tried Pathscale but it got fatal
internal errors about four modules into our make.  They got a license
for our code, and then I sent them our code.  That's the last we heard
from them.