Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!steve
From: steve@oakhill.UUCP (steve)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: DO loops, anyone? - Apologies!
Summary: No apology is needed from me.
Message-ID: <1919@devsys.oakhill.UUCP>
Date: 19 Mar 89 17:16:01 GMT
References: <459@orange19.qtp.ufl.edu> <50500107@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx
Lines: 49

In article <50500107@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, hirchert@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> 
> 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

If you read my articles, you will see I repeatedly state this is
officially illegal.  You claim that since this code is illegal
whatever the customer gets, he deserves.  Since there is no definition,
there is no defined behavior.

Theoretically you are right.

But, the problem does appear repeatedly in the real world.  And there
is an assumed behavior.  The behavior is that these two do loops act
concurrently, that the jump to the terminating statement increments
the last active loop and goes through the next loop cycle.  The
question arises on what to do if the terminating statement is exectuable,
which is what started this line of discussion originally (Actually
this hiccup was started because of bad code generated).

The assumed behavior does not include creating an infinitie loop,
causing the internal loop to run if it was to be skipped, or
executing the last statement twice.  And if you generate something
that does any of these, it is wrong.

                   enough from this mooncalf - Steven
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To flame someone for bad spelling or grammer is a discouragement to net
discussion in a timely fashion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These opinions aren't necessarily Motorola's or Remora's - but I'd like to
think we share some common views.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven R Weintraub                        cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!devsys!steve
Motorola Inc.  Austin, Texas 
(512) 440-3023 (office) (512) 453-6953 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------