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.