Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!gatech!hubcap!fpst
From: fpst@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Stevenson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Query: Complex data storage in new
Message-ID: <2910@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 31 Aug 88 12:12:38 GMT
References: <50500071@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 22

From article <50500071@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, by hirchert@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:
>>... what constraints are imposed (by X3J3) for the storing of complex data?
> ...upwards compatible with FORTRAN 77.  ... COMPLEX types which are
> either equivalenced to another type or in COMMON must be stored
> with real and imaginary parts interleaved.  Proposals [might] extend
> that requirement to nondefault COMPLEX types ....


That requirement might be a killer for performance on many of the newer
types of machines.  For example, the T-series hypercube would be reduced
to a scalar machine.  Surely there is a better way than to dictate a
second generation constraint to a N>4-th generation solution.

I guess that brings up the point of why --- in light of software
--- engineering we still encourage EQUIVALENCEing.  I realize that
storage optimization is a very necessary requirement.  Just seems that
this way is outmoded.
-- 
Steve Stevenson                            fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu
(aka D. E. Stevenson),                     fpst@prism.clemson.csnet
Department of Computer Science,            comp.parallel
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906 (803)656-5880.mabell