Xref: utzoo comp.lang.fortran:870 comp.software-eng:657
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Fortran follies
Summary: Communication.
Message-ID: <862@garth.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jul 88 22:04:40 GMT
References: <5377@cup.portal.com> <2852@mmintl.UUCP> <1005@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <801@garth.UUCP> <2229@sugar.UUCP>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 11

>YOW - perhaps it's a good thing that nobody does, too!! I've used those 
>sorts of tricks when writing AP microcode and have found that though
>they may yield impressive performance when done right, may also lead
>to strange and not-so-wonderful things happening when someone get in
>there and tweaks a bit. 

Obviously the compiler and hardware people have to talk to each other.
Because engineers are not willing to make guarentees, this trick is not used.

If the vectoriser is done right, it just means stuffing in an upper bound.
That is already done, in principle, but always with +infinity.