Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ncar!tank!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!hirchert
From: hirchert@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Dubious Fortran Construct
Message-ID: <50500095@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 88 20:45:00 GMT
References: <22994@sgi.SGI.COM>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:sgi.SGI.COM:22994:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:50500095:000:1060
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!hirchert    Dec 13 14:45:00 1988


Dave Seaman(ags@s.cc.purdue.edu) writes
>In article <44400031@hcx2> bill@hcx2.SSD.HARRIS.COM writes:
>>
>>The X3J3 FORTRAN committee has considered this question, and an
>>official interpretation will be published sometime in the near future,

>I was surprised to see this, because I see nothing ambiguous in the
>standard.

The fact that X3J3 considered this question does not mean that X3J3 thinks
that there is ambiguity on this issue, but rather that someone asked X3J3
to interpret this question.  The requestor argued that since the program is
not permitted to branch into the inner loop, the GO TO should be interpreted
as branching to somewhere that is was permitted to branch (i.e., the
terminal processing for the outer loop).  X3J3 said that while this is a
permissible extension, there was no justification in the standard for
expecting this behavior of all FORTRAN 77 processors.  In other words, X3J3
agreed with Dave's interpretation on this question.

Kurt W. Hirchert     hirchert@ncsa.uiuc.edu
National Center for Supercomputing Applications