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)