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?