Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!mfci!karzes
From: karzes@mfci.UUCP (Tom Karzes)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran follies
Message-ID: <405@m3.mfci.UUCP>
Date: 19 May 88 16:26:20 GMT
References: <5377@cup.portal.com> <50500052@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <705@thalia.rice.edu>
Sender: root@mfci.UUCP
Reply-To: karzes@mfci.UUCP (Tom Karzes)
Organization: Multiflow Computer Inc., Branford Ct. 06405
Lines: 32
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

In article <705@thalia.rice.edu> david@titan.UUCP (David Callahan) writes:
}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.
}...

No, this is legal Fortran 77.  You are confused about what constitutes
an association of entities.  Just because object A is stored at a
precisely defined position relative to object B does not mean they are
associated.  They must actually overlap to be associated.  See sections
17.1.2 (Association of Storage Sequences) and 17.1.3 (Association of
Entities) for an explanation of association in Fortran 77.  Also note
where, in the example in 17.1.3, they explicitly say that C(1) and C(2)
are not associated with each other (a slightly different case, but it
illustrates the basic point).