Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxd.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!hirchert
From: hirchert@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: DO loops, anyone? - Apologies!
Message-ID: <50500107@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 89 20:21:00 GMT
References: <459@orange19.qtp.ufl.edu>
Lines: 15
Nf-ID: #R:orange19.qtp.ufl.edu:459:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:50500107:000:663
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!hirchert    Mar 17 14:21:00 1989


Steven R Weintraub (steve@oakhill.UUCP) writes:

>As I stated in my previous post.  There is NO problem with the code as
>posted.  It is not ambiguous.  The problem is that the compiler, in
>order to prevent any posssible ambiguity, generates bad code.

As I stated in MY previous post, there is a big problem with the code as
posted -- it doesn't conform to X3.9-1978, the ANSI FORTRAN standard.  Just
because a compiler doesn't extend FORTRAN in the way you want it to (even if
the extension you want is reasonable) doesn't mean the compiler is generating
"bad code".

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