Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!hpclcdb!cdb
From: cdb@hpclcdb.HP.COM (Carl Burch)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: f8x impact on debugging (was: Re: yes vs. no on f8x)
Message-ID: <6690024@hpclcdb.HP.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 89 17:12:15 GMT
References: <24130@beta.lanl.gov>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Calif. Language Lab
Lines: 17


> I do not know what will happen on scalar machines.  For example, I have
> heard it rumoured that DEC opposes the array notation because the need
> to pass an array descriptor (rather than just a pointer to the start of
> the array) forces one more level of indirection in array references,
> and that this is a bad thing on a VAX.  Although I would guess that
> this potential trouble could be optimized away, it is this sort of
> information is what is needed to judge the efficiency issues.

     The rules for when (in effect) dope vectors will have to be passed
have been very carefully designed so that even nonoptimizing compilers
need not pass dope vectors for any FORTRAN 77 code.  Dope vectors will only
be required to be available when the "interface is explicit" - i.e., when 
the callee is the subject of an interface block or is USEd from a module, 
both F8x features - and only are necessary in some cases (e.g., assumed-
shape dummy argument arrays).
							- Carl Burch