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