From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!sn-xt-sjc-02!sn-xt-sjc-01!sn-xt-sjc-07!sn-post-02!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!nospam
From: nospam@see.signature (Richard E Maine)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Bounds Check Overhead
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:43:56 -0700
Organization: NASA Dryden
Message-ID: <1hfwgpj.1lxd4e162sveiN%nospam@see.signature>
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <XVadg.76594$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4475DA61.3080001@comcast.net> <m2mzd569l9.fsf@grendel.local>
 <44762F55.4050106@cits1.stanford.edu>
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.7 (Mac OS X version 10.4.6)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4478 comp.lang.fortran:10262
Date: 2006-05-25T15:43:56-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Brooks Moses <bmoses-nospam@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote:

> The Fortran equivalent is:
> 
>      do i = lbound(Some_Array), ubound(Some_Array)
>        call Process(Some_Array(i))
>      end do

or, if that is really all that is in the loop, and if Process is
elemental, just

    call Process(Some_Array)

will do the trick quite nicely. The compiler will build the loop for you
(or anyway, I think that's how most compilers implement elemental). But
the restrictions on elemental procedures are quite stringent (so much so
that I find it hard to do much useful with them except for the most
fundamental of operations), so this isn't really a "fair" comparison.
The version Brooks showed is more realistic in most cases. I just
thought I'd mention the elemental possibility.

-- 
Richard Maine                     | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov            |       -- Mark Twain