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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7767a311e01e1cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.volia.net!keepthis.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp3-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:32:29 +0200
From: Damien Carbonne <damien.carbonne@free.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT compiler switches and optimization
References: <1161341264.471057.252750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <9Qb_g.111857$aJ.65708@attbi_s21> <434o04-7g7.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <4539ce34$1_2@news.bluewin.ch> <nrup04-5hj.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <453A532F.2070709@obry.net> <9kfq04-sgm.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <sj3r04-rlv.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <5vgs04-64f.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
In-Reply-To: <5vgs04-64f.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <453bc74e$0$19614$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Oct 2006 21:32:30 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.235.135.166
X-Trace: 1161545550 news-1.free.fr 19614 82.235.135.166:49384
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7139
Date: 2006-10-22T21:32:30+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey Creem a �crit :
> Followup on the bug report.
> 
> One of the comments asserted that the two programs were not equivilent 
> though I am not yet 100% convinced that I believe it yet.
> 
<snip>
> 
> 
> Can someone that understands FORTRAN better make an argument about the 
> "closeness" of this approach v.s. the other?

I've been following this thread for some times and I'm not a Fortran 
Guru,however, IIRC, Fortran arrays and Ada arrays don't have the same 
memory layout (Something like row major order and column major order).
I've not compared programs of this thread with care, but I've the 
feeling that this could change things.
Some years ago, I had to mix Ada and Fortran, and I remember that we had 
to invert loops order to obtain the same result.
One would need to add 'pragma Convention (Fortran, Real_Matrix)' on Ada 
side to obtain the same result, or to exchange loops.
My knowledge of Fortran was limited to Fortran 77, and I don't know if 
this is still valid with Fortran 95 or later.
But if is still true, I would not consider the 2 programs as equivalent.

Regards

Damien Carbonne