Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pacbell!att!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C vs. FORTRAN Message-ID: <5173@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 30 Jun 88 23:44:20 GMT References: <3136@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <225800038@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <797@garth.UUCP> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 25 In article <797@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes: |>Another possible plus for Fortran is that, by default (and for most |>compilers, and in real F66 and F77, always) there is NO RECURSION, |>and therefore no necessity of copying parameters to a stack. They |>can be statically compiled in. This is only a benefit on some |>architectures. What do you mean by 'statically compiled in'? The references still need to be copied; they (the references) are just copied to a fixed location instead of to a relative position off the argument pointer (which points into the stack). |And no array allocation at run time. All arrays can be allocated in |the compiler. All dope vectors except adjustable arrays are computable |by the compiler. Excluding dynamic arrays (arrays allocated in the heap), if you have a stack, it takes ZERO more machine instructions to allocate arrays. The amount of space needed for a frame on the stack is determined at compile time. -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) You are in a little twisting maze of / / _ , __o ____ email paths, all different. / (_