Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rice!titan!david
From: david@titan.rice.edu (David Callahan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran follies
Message-ID: <705@thalia.rice.edu>
Date: 18 May 88 19:35:34 GMT
References: <5377@cup.portal.com> <50500052@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@rice.edu
Reply-To: david@titan.UUCP (David Callahan)
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 34

In article <50500052@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>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

Very common (probably essential to making libraries) but not legal;

"15.9.3.6 Restrictions on Assoication of Entities.  If a 
subprogram reference causes a dummy argument in the 
referenced subprogram to become associated with another 
dummy argument in the referenced subprogram, neither 
dummy argument may become defined during execution of
that subprogram. For example, if a subroutine is headed by
	SUBROUTINE XYZ(A,B)
and is referend by 
	CALL XYZ (C,C)
then the dummy arguments A and B each become associated
with the same acutal argument C and therefore with each other.
Neither A nor B may become defined during this execution
of the subroutine XYZ or by any procedure referend by ZYX."

david callahan