Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!sun!chiba!khb From: khb@chiba.Sun.COM (chiba) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: dpANS Fortran 8x Message-ID: <109681@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 13 Jun 89 05:41:45 GMT References: <2716@elxsi.UUCP> <26042@beta.lanl.gov> Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (chiba) Distribution: usa Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 49 In article lamson@sierra.steinmetz.ge.com (scott h lamson) writes: > >>the pointer >>mechanism in the current draft completely blows optimization (except >>perhaps peephole-type optimization). an utterly bizarre decision. >>i *want* pointers, but i want my fortran to fly, and it won't the >>way the current draft reads. > >After hearing Walt Brainerd's seminar on the current draft standard >(Very worth while!!), my understanding is that the bad things pointers >will do to optimization will only impact arrays that have the TARGET >attribute (at least if the compiler implementation is "good enough"). >If you use TARGET sparingly, you should be able to maintain efficient >code generation. I spoke against voilating Fortran with pointers in >the first public review, but I will be reconsidering that position for >the second. The final impact of pointer is hotly disputed. For those applications which NEED pointer (e.g. doubly linked list manipulation) the cost is proabably quite acceptable. Adopting a C-like coding style will probably trash optimization. So those of us want to go fast, will mostly use arrays, dynamic, static, sections and old-style.... reserving pointers for special (rare) purposes. > >For both up to date information on the current draft as well as an >appreciation of how the proposed language can be used, I highly >reccomend Brainerd's seminar. You can contact him at >brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu. > Walt does a good job. FORTEC Forum and the Fortran Journal are also worthwhile sources of information. When I have converted the disks (probably tomorrow) I will be posting Prof. Meissner's (sp ?) summary (part I). The good prof. is editor of the Forum, and has granted everyone the right to re-distribute his summary. While I do not want folks to not go and read the whole thing, the text of the offical standard is quite obtuse (it is in the nature of the beast) and well thought summaries (or even Metcalf and Reid's now out of date text) really do a better job of getting the overall picture, and philosophy of the language across. At the very least, one should study them _before_ ordering the text from Global.... Cheers all. Keith H. Bierman |*My thoughts are my own. Only my work belongs to Sun* It's Not My Fault | Marketing Technical Specialist ! kbierman@sun.com I Voted for Bill & | Languages and Performance Tools. Opus (* strange as it may seem, I do more engineering now *)