Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!warwick!cudat
From: cudat@warwick.ac.uk (J M Hicks)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: COMMON (was: Re: Maximum Stack Size for a Subprog.?)
Summary: COMMON blocks in overlay trees
Keywords: Common, overlays
Message-ID: <695@sol.warwick.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Aug 88 09:34:38 GMT
References: <271@quintus.UUCP>
Reply-To: cudat@warwick.ac.uk (J M Hicks)
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Lines: 20

In article <271@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>Trivia point:  in Fortran 66 this applied to COMMON blocks as well.
>...
>...  So, for example, you
>could arrange overlays of COMMON blocks quite legally, though a
>compiler was not required to support this.  Does anyone know of any
>Fortran compiler which _didn't_ allocate COMMON blocks statically?

I have used two Fortran IV compilers that allowed COMMON blocks not to be
in the root of the overlay tree: one was on an IBM 370, the other on
a PDP-11/70 under IAS (now RSX11-D, I think).  Whether such a feature was
of any use is another matter...
--
J. M. Hicks (a.k.a. Hilary),
Computing Services, Warwick University, Coventry, England. CV4 7AL
On JANET:       cudat@UK.AC.WARWICK.CU (in the U.K.)
From BITNET:    cudat@CU.WARWICK.AC.UK
From ARPAnet: try  cudat%cu.warwick.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu   (untested)
On Usenet:      ...!ihnp4!mcvax!ukc!warwick!cudat
                                It helps if you spell "cudat" in lower case.