🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan26.190831.8026@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
> I've never run across a Fortran implementation which did not have 
> these as operations as either intrinsic functions or operators which 
> are inlined and which use the hardware instructions (if the hardware 
> has them) to perform these operations.  A glance at the document for 
> your particular Fortran implementation would probably have revealed a 
> non-clumsy Fortran solution.  Certainly it's less clumsy to use a
> implementation defined extension to Fortran than to rely on C (the
> interface to which is also implementation defined and not portable).
 The original post mentioned that the compiler, if you can call it that, was
f2c, which is a translator. The version of f2c which I have used does not
recognize IAND,IOR, etc., as intrinsic functions and generates a function
call.
 This turns out to be a mildly interesting problem if the Fortran program
uses the aforementioned LOGICAL functions as generic, i.e., calling it with
different data types within the same program. This creates a problem for
the translator since it doesn't know how to prototype the function. My
version of f2c (it's old, I don't know if there's anything newer) issues a
warning in this case.
 The correct answer to the original question is, indeed, to write C code to
implement the functions. I might be tempted to replace (inline) the function
calls in the f2c output (C source) with the appropriate C code due to the
problem I mentioned above. In any case, one must use code that is correct.

David Robinow		DROBINOW@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Logicon Technical Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 317258
Dayton, Ohio 45431-7258		  (speaking for myself)