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!news3.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!sn-xt-sjc-03!sn-xt-sjc-12!sn-xt-sjc-08!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: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:48:26 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <1hgf2d0.13zq6ui8qhry8N%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> <87hd3d1472.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <1hfxsjh.t88mchrssv9cN%nospam@see.signature>
 <nXGdg.33893$4L1.2348@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfxy4r.1sv2j76l6cgg1N%nospam@see.signature>
 <ECIdg.33937$4L1.7748@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfy2t0.g0sxtp1srj7r3N%nospam@see.signature>
 <wccr72bqqau.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
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:4682 comp.lang.fortran:10660
Date: 2006-06-04T16:48:26-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:

> I'm not a Fortran expert, but I think you're saying that (according to
> the Fortran standard) it is an error to modify a DO-loop variable, but
> Fortran compilers are not required to detect this error.  They are
> allowed to, and in fact do so in some cases.
> 
> But a separate issue is whether it is possible or feasible for compilers
> to detect this error in all cases.  Apparently (please correct me if I'm
> wrong), it is not feasible for Fortran compilers to detect this error in
> all cases.

That's correct. Of course, it is always possible for the error to be
detected at run-time, but that's not the same thing (and is not required
by the standard either).

I agree with your other comments. (Well, I agree with the above one
also, but I thought I'd confirm your supposition).

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain