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!news2.google.com!atl-c05.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!router2.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb.com!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-06!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!nospam From: nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Bounds Check Overhead Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:46:14 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <1hfy2t0.g0sxtp1srj7r3N%nospam@see.signature> References: <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature> <4475DA61.3080001@comcast.net> <44762F55.4050106@cits1.stanford.edu> <87hd3d1472.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <1hfxsjh.t88mchrssv9cN%nospam@see.signature> <1hfxy4r.1sv2j76l6cgg1N%nospam@see.signature> User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.7 (Mac OS X version 10.4.4) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4512 comp.lang.fortran:10311 Date: 2006-05-26T12:46:14-07:00 List-Id: Nasser Abbasi wrote: > I do not think this is too hard for the compiler to check, but I can be > wrong. I would have to assume then that this is a g95 issue where it just > does not do this extra check if it is supposed to be part of the Fortran > standard to try to check against loop counters updates. I seem to be having some trouble communicating here. No it is not "supposed to be part of the Fortran standard to try to check against loop counters updates". I will repeat for the 3rd time. >> Compilers are not required to enforce that rule, Am I not making this clear? I cannot come up with a simpler way of stating it. As I also said >> In terms of the standard, that is basically all there is to say. Anything else on the subject is outside of the standard. Really. There are other things to say on the subject, but not in the standard. Also, there is almost nothing that the standard says that compilers are supposed to "try" to do. To quote Yoda "Do or do not... there is no try." There are plenty of things that the market (i.e. users) say that compilers should try to do, but it is quite rare for the standard to say things like that. There are a few cases where the standard has a "recommendation", which could reasonably be interpreted as a suggestion to try to do something that is not strictly required. But those are rare and none of them are in this area. -- Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain