Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Dimensioning arrays at run-time, best way?
Message-ID: <3798@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 21 Sep 90 08:20:04 GMT
References: <614@keele.keele.ac.uk> <1990Sep17.150155.10220@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 30

In article <614@keele.keele.ac.uk> phd11@.uk.ac.keele (Zipzoid) asked:
> I think this question may have been asked many times before,
> but what is the best way of dimensioning an array whose maximum
> memory requirement (size) would be read in at run-time?

In article <1990Sep17.150155.10220@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) suggested:

>       PROGRAM EXAMPLE
>       read(*,*)n
>       call sub1(n)
>       END

>       SUBROUTINE SUB1(N,X)
>       real X(N)
> C     Do the work in this subroutine.
> C     Of course you can't use common blocks so you'll have to pass X
> C      around as an argument.
>       END

> 			        Good luck!

My word we'll _need_ it!  What, precisely, is X supposed to be?  Yes,
I know that this was deliberate.  What when you arrive in SUB1, what
do you expect X to be?  On one machine here, when I use f77 X seems
to be the address 0 (which happens to "work"), while when I use f2c
followed by gcc I get a completely different address.

-- 
Heuer's Law:  Any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off.