From: bg...@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Two VastF90 questions
Date: 1999/03/23
Message-ID: <873e2wrsxp.fsf@bglbv.my-dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 458054580
References: <7cr8vn$t5j$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <bergervo.921973577@iaehv.IAEhv.nl> <87vhfv2ibk.fsf@bglbv.my-dejanews.com> <bergervo.922042401@iaehv.IAEhv.nl>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net
X-Trace: news5.svr.pol.co.uk 922212972 1077 62.136.96.241 (23 Mar 1999 18:16:12 GMT)
Organization: Customer of Planet Online
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Mar 1999 18:16:12 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran

berge...@iaehv.IAEhv.nl (Jos Bergervoet) writes:

> >How about READ (..., ADVANCE='NO') ? If the underlying Fortran 77
> 
> Good point. That one isn't translated (but what would be it's use?)

How about finding out the actual size of an input record (via the
SIZE= keyword)? Or handling arbitrarily long lines of input by
looping with READ(...,ADVANCE='NO',IOSTAT=ios,SIZE=isize) until
(ios<0) ?

> >In the case of g77, perhaps it would be a good idea for someone to
> >add full ADVANCE='NO' support to libg2c (or however it's now called)

> I would very much prefer the qualified craftspersons to postpone that,
> and FIRST include allocatable arrays (pointers may be postponed also,
> of course.)

You are assuming that the qualified craftmen are the same for both
enhancements. This need not be so, as most of the work for
non-advancing I/O is in modifying the I/O library while ALLOCATABLE
support has far deeper implications for the compiler itself.