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   |