Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!rochester!ken From: ken@rochester.UUCP (Ken Yap) Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Constants in subroutine calls Message-ID: <5143@rochester.UUCP> Date: Sun, 6-Jan-85 09:43:44 EST Article-I.D.: rocheste.5143 Posted: Sun Jan 6 09:43:44 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 02:40:17 EST References: <6599@brl-tgr.ARPA> <979@opus.UUCP> <1146@ut-ngp.UUCP> <18397@lanl.ARPA> <472@intelca.UUCP> Reply-To: ken@rochester.UUCP (Ken Yap) Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept. Lines: 17 Summary: The problem is not using constants in subroutine calls per se but changing a parameter that corresponds to a constant. BTW I saw a neat way of trapping this sort of error without any run-time overhead in the VMS Fortran compiler. Constants are placed in a read-only segment and the VM system traps any violation. True, you may get an obscure error message if your run-time doesn't understand what happened but it is better than carrying on innocently. Can anybody tell me if there are other compilers out there that also do this? If not, is there any reason this is not more widely practiced? (Other than lack of memory management hardware, that is.) -- Ken Yap UUCP: (..!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!ken) ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa USnail: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627. Voice: Ken!