Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:806 comp.software-eng:644
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Fortran follies
Summary: Assumed size follies.
Message-ID: <799@garth.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jun 88 23:40:13 GMT
References: <5377@cup.portal.com> <2852@mmintl.UUCP> <1005@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <701@garth.UUCP> <2157@sugar.UUCP> <777@garth.UUCP> <3244@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 30

In article <3244@s.cc.purdue.edu> ags@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Dave Seaman) writes:
>>As does the CDC Cyber 205 Fortran ....
>
>Unfortunately the Cyber 205 FTN200 compiler turns out to be nonstandard
>because of this.  You cannot treat an array with final dimension 1 as being
>indistinguishable from an assumed-size array, because the standard says the
>following is legal Fortran .......
>FTN200 used to handle this correctly, but when the change was made so that
>runtime array bounds checking (when enabled) would not apply to dummy
>arrays with a final bound of 1, an undesired side effect was to make code
>like that above fail to compile.  And yes, there are legitimate reasons for
>writing code like this.

Not to disagree. The compiler was changed to make the manager happy.
I would've preferred to make people change 1 to * when that was they meant.

>ags@j.cc.purdue.edu
         --------

John Jackson et al?

-------------------------------------------
The sherrif looks at me and says,
"Whacha doin here, boy?
You'd better get your bags and leave."
It's the same old story,
keeping the customers satisfied....
satisfied.
                  -Paul Simon
                   (the singer not the bowtie)