Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!samsung!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!fman.enet.dec.com!peterson
From: peterson@fman.enet.dec.com (Bob Peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: FORTRAN and (un)SAVEd vars
Keywords: FORTRAN 77, SAVE
Message-ID: <1991Mar5.194219@fman.enet.dec.com>
Date: 6 Mar 91 00:42:19 GMT
References: <8@interet.UUCP> <1991Feb28.004447.3728@nas.nasa.gov> <4849@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <1991Feb28.164256.23516@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@shlump.nac.dec.com
Reply-To: peterson@fman.enet.dec.com (Bob Peterson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 8

Even if the compiler doesn't do the flow analysis completely, shouldn't
it be a safe bet that SAVEd variables operate as fast or faster than
unsaved variables?  This presumes you aren't using an overlaid memory
system, but that unSAVEd variables are stack-based (automatic) and
SAVEd variables are statically allocated.  Overlays may throw in kinks
I am not familiar with.

\bob