Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!columbia!cubsun!shenkin From: shenkin@cubsun.BIO.COLUMBIA.EDU (Peter Shenkin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Maximum Stack Size for a Subprog.? Message-ID: <71@cubsun.BIO.COLUMBIA.EDU> Date: 11 Aug 88 12:37:16 GMT References: <47900003@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu] <50500062@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu] <271@quintus.UUCP] Reply-To: shenkin@cubsun.UUCP (Peter Shenkin) Organization: Dept. of Biology, Columbia Univ., New York, NY Lines: 20 In article <271@quintus.UUCP] ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: ]In article <50500062@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu] mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: ]]variables in a function or subroutine may indeed be on some sort ]]of stack and may disappear on function exit, in the absence of a SAVE ]]statement (Fortran 77). ] ]Trivia point: in Fortran 66 this applied to COMMON blocks as well. Isn't this also true of Fortran 77? I thought it was..... ] ....Does anyone know of any ]Fortran compiler which _didn't_ allocate COMMON blocks statically? I don't...... -- ******************************************************************************* Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027 Tel: (212) 280-5517 (work); (212) 829-5363 (home) shenkin@cubsun.bio.columbia.edu shenkin%cubsun.bio.columbia.edu@cuvmb.BITNET