Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!bbn!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!rpi!crdgw1!lamson From: lamson@sierra.steinmetz.ge.com (scott h lamson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: dpANS Fortran 8x Summary: pointers, maybeeeeee Message-ID: Date: 12 Jun 89 12:08:58 GMT References: <2716@elxsi.UUCP> <26042@beta.lanl.gov> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Distribution: usa Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development Lines: 26 In-reply-to: dd@beta.lanl.gov's message of 11 Jun 89 05:14:04 GMT >the pointer >mechanism in the current draft completely blows optimization (except >perhaps peephole-type optimization). an utterly bizarre decision. >i *want* pointers, but i want my fortran to fly, and it won't the >way the current draft reads. After hearing Walt Brainerd's seminar on the current draft standard (Very worth while!!), my understanding is that the bad things pointers will do to optimization will only impact arrays that have the TARGET attribute (at least if the compiler implementation is "good enough"). If you use TARGET sparingly, you should be able to maintain efficient code generation. I spoke against voilating Fortran with pointers in the first public review, but I will be reconsidering that position for the second. For both up to date information on the current draft as well as an appreciation of how the proposed language can be used, I highly reccomend Brainerd's seminar. You can contact him at brainerd@unmvax.cs.unm.edu. -- Scott| ARPA: lamson@crd.ge.com Lamson| UUCP: uunet!crd.ge.com!lamson (518)387-5795| UUCP: uunet!sierra.crd.ge.com!lamson