On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Kent A. Reed <kentallanreed@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/3/2013 4:28 AM, Dave Caroline wrote: >> >> Any idea of the source date of the code on sourceforge? >> I want to get the right ish Fortran manual to help me understand the I have found http://www.fh-jena.de/~kleine/history/languages/GC28-6515-10-FORTRAN-IV-Language.pdf which looks promising for the age/era >> foibles of the original source > > > Dave: > > I seem to recall trying to make an educated guess as to the version of > FORTRAN used. See my Google Site where you will also find links to some > relevant FORTRAN manuals. However, the problem here is much simpler. > > >> currently stuck on >> >> >> AMON5.FOR: In subroutine `amon5': >> AMON5.FOR:6: >> INTEGER*2 >> KAT/0/,KTEMP(2),KTERM(2)/2,X'0E02'/,KCOMMA(2)/0,X'0904' >> >> ^ >> Invalid form for type-declaration statement at (^) >> AMON5.FOR:6: >> INTEGER*2 >> KAT/0/,KTEMP(2),KTERM(2)/2,X'0E02'/,KCOMMA(2)/0,X'0904' >> >> ^ >> Too few initial values in list of initializers for `kcomma' at (^) >> > > What happened to the closing solidus ("/")? Without it, the FORTRAN scanner > keeps looking for more data. > > Also, as formatted in your message, this line starts in column 11, which is > ok, but ends in column 75, which isn't ok for traditional FORTRAN and its > 72-column line width. I think this may just be an artifact of the > cut-n-paste; perhaps it expanded tabs in a funny way. The original has a wasted space at the beginning of the line! removing that on my edited version got it to compile. I am just not used to silly column restrictions :) that rapidly got me up to AMONTR.FOR which has a classic kludge, I have to add another layer of obscurity and keep an equivalence to an array of bytes because the compiler upchucks with a logical array http://www.archivist.info/apt/aptos/apt360/orig_source/g77/err.txt (but that will change as I progress) Dave > > Regards, > Kent > >