Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!husc6!rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: better ratfor ?
Message-ID: <1355@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Nov-86 18:01:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.1355
Posted: Wed Nov 26 18:01:48 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Nov-86 01:57:36 EST
References: <1724@ncoast.UUCP> <5401@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Distribution: comp.org.decus
Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL
Lines: 19
Keywords: ratfor, fortran, optimize, f77

In article <5401@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP writes:
>In article <1724@ncoast.UUCP> btb@ncoast.UUCP (Brad Banko) writes:
>>		if (.not. (i .le. n)) goto (end of loop)
>>rather than into the much more efficient:
>>		if (i .gt. n) goto (end of loop)
>If your Fortran compiler cannot perform the
>above optimization, then it must be pretty puny.  Beefing up
>the compiler would be much better than complicating Ratfor.

Wonder what compiler was used?  Even the "slow, inefficient" UNIX f77
performs that particular optimization by default (no -O).
-- 
 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division |  upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
	   go for it!  			allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy