Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!jerry
From: jerry@violet.berkeley.edu (Jerry Berkman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Re: COMMON and SAVE statements  (LONG)
Message-ID: <1990Sep12.205205.8998@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 12 Sep 90 20:52:05 GMT
References: <65861@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <2065@bnlux0.bnl.gov>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 24

In article <2065@bnlux0.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux0.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>
>The DO loop provides several good examples of this ...
> ... the committee defined a subset of the possible
>loop arrangements which would have the same behavior on all processors,
>and outlawed the rest.  This is why DO parameters may not be altered
>within the loop and DO index values are undefined afterwards -- the
>standard says that all bets are off if go outside this subset, but it
>cannot say what exactly what will happen.
>
>
>BAM		     			     -/s/-
>    (bam@bnlux0.bnl.gov)		 Bruce A. Martin	

I got a little confused about whether "standard" is referring to the
1966 or 1977 standard.  In the 1977 standard (section 11.10.2):

	"When a DO-loop becomes inactive, the DO-variable of the
	 DO-loop retains its last defined value."
	
	- Jerry Berkman, U.C. Berkeley, (415)642-4804
	  jerry@violet.berkeley.edu

(normal disclaimers: opinions are my own, not my employers, etc.) opinions are my own, not my employers, etc.)