Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!bellcore!clyde!cbatt!cwruecmp!hal!ncoast!btb
From: btb@ncoast.UUCP (Brad Banko)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: better ratfor ?
Message-ID: <1768@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 30-Nov-86 20:59:27 EST
Article-I.D.: ncoast.1768
Posted: Sun Nov 30 20:59:27 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Dec-86 19:58:59 EST
References: <1724@ncoast.UUCP> <5401@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1355@ttrdc.UUCP>
Reply-To: btb@ncoast.UUCP (Brad Banko)
Distribution: comp.org.decus
Organization: Cleveland Public Access UNIX, Cleveland, OH
Lines: 21
Keywords: ratfor, fortran, optimize, f77
Summary: optimizing boolean expressions?


	I appreciate any and all comments about my Ratfor problems.

	(	if (.not. (a.le.n) ) ..., should go to:

		if ( a.gt.n ) ...	),

	I don't know much about compilers.  Our Fortran compiler is
Vax Fortran, and what I do know is that first, the "optimization" is
always "on" unless you turn if off (according to the online help), and
second, if the ratfor ( if (.not. (a.le.n))...) is hand optimized to
( if (a.gt.n) ...) the resulting executable file runs twice as fast.
	The problem seems to be that the compiler is not smart enough to
optimize boolean expressions in general... which I don't fault it for,
but I don't appreciate the umpteen messages that tell me that my fortran
compiler should do the work, because it obviously does not.

-- 
			Brad Banko
			...!decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!btb
			Cleveland, Ohio