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.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:05:24 +0200 Organization: MediaSec Technologies GmbH Message-ID: <4e294gF1cntmjU1@individual.net> References: <4dd87pF18ot14U1@individual.net> <447207D6.3010408@cits1.stanford.edu> <4dg101F17acafU1@individual.net> <44730df4$1@news.meer.net> <4diimsF1b0c25U1@individual.net> <8V_cg.155757$eR6.70498@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <646dnfYoKul8MOnZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com> <4e09bgF1cdqssU2@individual.net> <1148964924.497234.28220@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net w1AI2yrg1dxhCcQZDqwVuw/vOeVlkOohOkpR+WVlmtIoLVeOkK User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en In-Reply-To: <1148964924.497234.28220@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4600 comp.lang.fortran:10465 Date: 2006-05-30T09:05:24+02:00 List-Id: > The cases of COMMON and EQUIVALENCE are not a serious problem, > since the compiler can tell if an array is in a common block or an > equivalence group. Yes, that was clear - this is similar to what the Sun C compiler does to art. > Passing the array to an external routine is a serious problem, but I do > not classify passing arrays to external routines as historical baggage. I wasn't going to suggest that 8-). I would say the situation is similar to (non-)SEQUENCE types. Without the SEQUENCE attribute, the compiler is allowed to do any "local" optimization because the programmer promises that it has all references to that type "in view". With the SEQUENCE attribute, the compiler has to promise to handle all "compatible" definitions in exactly the same way, but otherwise has lee- way to define that way as it wants. In the complex case, for seperate com- pilation the compiler has no way to determine that a different compilation unit uses sequence association (be it by EQUIVALENCE or otherwise), so it has to assume the worst - i.e., typical C behaviour 8-). Jan