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!news2.volia.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen@not-mediasec.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Bounds Check Overhead
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:02:15 +0200
Organization: MediaSec Technologies GmbH
Message-ID: <4e0655F1cmmh1U1@individual.net>
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$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4475DA61.3080001@comcast.net> <m2mzd569l9.fsf@grendel.local>
 <44762F55.4050106@cits1.stanford.edu> <87hd3d1472.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <3cBdg.6255$oa3.2407@trnddc08>
 <SuEdg.167361$eR6.86840@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <e574mu$rrj$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu> <87ac9420s5.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <2006052614490816807-gsande@worldnetattnet>
 <z9zsec06oirx.4jmtrfo8pysg$.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net yoNfRI4N2sLK69NpKAdzoQQEUv+gNRM3Q7lRTNiru7ZBvxPhdH
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <z9zsec06oirx.4jmtrfo8pysg$.dlg@40tude.net>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4576 comp.lang.fortran:10420
Date: 2006-05-29T14:02:15+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> The design decisions made in Ada are always in favor of 1, maybe at the
> cost of some idioms. So in Ada modifying the index of a loop isn't a
> "bounded error" as it seems to be in Fortran, it is a compile-time error.

My take is that current Fortran enables a compiler to behave in a similar way
_if_ your program obeys certain rules - I suspect the restrictions implemented
by F (a "modern" subset supported, at least, by a mode in g95) fulfil these
rules. However, the desire to support older source code makes it impossible
to remove the "escape routes" from the standard and to mandate the necessary
restrictions for the language.

	Jan