Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!ames!vsi1!wyse!mips!prls!weaver
From: weaver@prls.UUCP (Michael Weaver)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: CHARACTER EQUIVALENCE (Was Re: fortran to C converter)
Message-ID: <21338@prls.UUCP>
Date: 22 Apr 89 00:04:01 GMT
References: <67044@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1390@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: weaver@prls.UUCP (Michael Weaver)
Organization: Philips Research Labs, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 30

In article <1390@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>
>#In article <50500123@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>#>   In some sicko implementations, and in pure ANSI F77 itself, you
>#>have to have a separate common block for characters (UGH!).
>
>In article <67044@pyramid.pyramid.com>  (Mike Lipsie) writes:
>#If you allow equivalence
>#between CHARACTER and non-CHARACTER variables, you automatically have
>#non-portable code.
>#
>
>Is it just me or does this answer pertain to a different question? I
>don't see what EQUIVALENCE has to do with seperate common blocks.
>

Ahem. You are allowed to put different variable names into commons with
the same name, thus aliasing variables. My guess is that the restriction
on mixing character and integers in commons (and I have been bit by this
one) has more to do with alignment (characters aligned to byte, integer
to two or more bytes) and supporting characters on machines which really
only know about words.


Michael Gordon Weaver
Signetics/Philips Components
811 East Arques Avenue, Bin 75
Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
Phone: (408) 991-3450
Usenet: ...!mips!prls!weaver