Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!umd5!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: mini-flame re: Fortran arguments and `noalias'
Keywords: pragmas, compiler hints
Message-ID: <10144@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jan 88 14:32:50 GMT
References: <485@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <1453@cuuxb.ATT.COM> <9934@mimsy.UUCP> <872@micomvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 24

>In article <9934@mimsy.UUCP> I mentioned
>>Some FORTRAN compilers may indeed use copy-in/copy-out ...
>>but I think it is not mandated.
>       ^^^^^

In article <872@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>You reply to a VERY descriptive, VERY well written posting which clears up
>MUCH of the confusion on the meaning/impact of the aliasing question, by a
>nit-picking criticism of a point irrelevant to the central theme the poster
>was expounding, and OF WHICH YOU ARE NOT EVEN SURE OF THE CORRECTNESS!!

Ai!  Forgive me, but I lack a Fortran 77 reference manual.  I would
have pointed to the code, but 4BSD has been known to be buggy before.

Besides, I was right :-) .

Seriously, though, since value-result is *not* mandated, those
writing Fortran code should not count on it.  That I did not respond
to the rest of Marc Mengel's article meant that I would not (at
least then) argue with it (except for the claim that C has argument
aliasing problems that Fortran does not).
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris