Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: archiving block data subroutines...
Message-ID: <4382@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 27 Nov 90 09:26:09 GMT
References: <BURLEY.90Oct22050633@world.std.com> <27320@shamash.cdc.com> <7388@hub.ucsb.edu>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 18

In article <7388@hub.ucsb.edu>, 3003jalp@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Applied Magnetics) writes:
> C    <Never call this routine!  Just leave it near your main.
>       SUBROUTINE KABOOM
>       CALL BD
>       END
> C    <This BD is no subroutine.  It's the block data.  Tee hee.
> C    <Hope this will fool the loader.
> 
> Anybody out there have a loader that refuses to cooperate?

I know that the Burroughs compilers used different names for
COMMON blocks (e.g. "/ABLOCK/") and subroutines (e.g. "ABLOCK").
That caught quite a lot of mistakes.  I imagine that a Fortran
compiler could do the same for block data, e.g. "*BD*".  That
would give you trouble.  It's a compiler choice, not a loader
one.
-- 
I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa.		-- Ariadne.