Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!bbn!gatech!emcard!mat From: mat@emcard.UUCP (Mat Waites) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C vs. FORTRAN Message-ID: <5728@emcard.UUCP> Date: 8 Jul 88 12:31:32 GMT References: <3136@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <225800038@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <797@garth.UUCP> <5173@ihlpf.ATT.COM> <852@garth.UUCP> <546@philmds.UUCP> <30305@cca.CCA.COM> <872@garth.UUCP> <5234@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Reply-To: mat@emcard.UUCP (Mat Waites) Organization: Emory University Cardiac Data Bank Lines: 30 In article <5234@ihlpf.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) writes: ] ]Security in FORTRAN (with respect to calling conventions)?? Look at the ]following piece of pseudoFORTRAN: ] ] subroutine foo(j) ] j = 5 ] end ] ... ] call foo(1) ] ]This passes through the compiler with no problem. If you look at the ]run-time error, it's usually a memory violation and not a ]compiler-generated error. Some security. ]-- ] _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 I have worked on several systems where the example code would run with no problems. No problems except that the constant "1" would have the value of 5 for the rest of the program. This kind of problem can make for interesting debugging sessions, especially for neo-fortranners. Mat -- W Mat Waites | | Emory Cardiac Data Bank | UUCP: gatech!emcard!mat | Atlanta, GA 30322 | PHONE: (404) 727-7197 |