Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran follies
Message-ID: <50500052@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 14 May 88 19:58:00 GMT
References: <5377@cup.portal.com>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:cup.portal.com:5377:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:50500052:000:944
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    May 14 14:58:00 1988


(not including the examples, which are long)

The second program is not only illegal, it is horrible practice
and you ought to forget about it. The first one, though, you had
better get to work right. Dimensioning things "1" when they are passed
as arguments is extremely common. I just read the appropriate sections
of the F77 standard, and I can't tell if it is legal. But if your
compiler won't work on it, your customers have a good reason to be mad.
Why can't the compiler tell how big the arrays are, hence how big
any temporary storage needs to be, from the index range of the DO loop?
If it can't, it is pretty stupid.


Actually, consider this example:

        real x(100000)
        call sub(1000, x(1),x(10000),x(20000))
        ...

        subroutine sub(n,x,y,z)
        dimension x(n), y(n), z(n)
        do 1 i= 1,n
1       z(i)= x(i)+y(i)
         end

This had also better work. I THINK that it is even legal.
Doug McDonald