Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:797 comp.software-eng:638
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!zodiac!joyce!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Fortran follies
Message-ID: <777@garth.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jun 88 23:33:02 GMT
References: <5377@cup.portal.com> <2852@mmintl.UUCP> <1005@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <701@garth.UUCP> <2157@sugar.UUCP>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 18

In article <2157@sugar.UUCP> ssd@sugar.UUCP (Scott Denham) writes:
>You make a good point. I have since learned that the most recent version
>of IBM's vectorizing compiler makes what is probably the most reasonable
>assumtion that can be made: a final dimension of 1 or * on a dummy array
>are treated the same; for purposes of vectorization and optimization the
>acutal dimension is assumed to be unknown. Any other value is assumed to
>be correct.

As does the CDC Cyber 205 Fortran for the (?) last year. (I only know when
I coded--the powers that be decided when/if it was released.)

>                      Further, an estimate of size is much safer than a
>binary VECTOR/NOVECTOR directive, since the boundary will differ on 
>different architectures and possibly on different models within the 
>same architecture. 

64 elements for a Cray, 4096 for a Cyber 990, 65535 for a Cyber 205/ETA 10.
I don't know what IBM vectors are like. Is the Hitachi machine (?VPxxxx)
in existent yet?