Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!tank!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: DO loops, anyone? - Apologies!
Message-ID: <16448@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 20 Mar 89 00:40:08 GMT
References: <459@orange19.qtp.ufl.edu> <50500107@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <1919@devsys.oakhill.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 18

In article <1919@devsys.oakhill.UUCP> steve@oakhill.UUCP (steve) writes:
>... the problem [of branching into inactive DO-loops, in particular to
>terminating CONTINUE statements] does appear repeatedly in the real
>world.  And there is an assumed behavior.

Not so.  The problem does appear; but there are *two* assumed behaviours.
Yours is only one of them.  (The other is for the compiler to manufacture
extra labels so that the branch is not into an inactive DO-loop.)  It is
not clear which to choose; I say the compiler should reject the code,
unless one of two switches is used, each of which causes the compiler
to run the code at about 1% full speed (by inserting delay loops).

*That* should get people to fix their code!  :-)

`Well, we *did* say it would run slower if you demanded it work your way' :-)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris