Re: better ratfor ?

Article View: comp.lang.fortran

Article #4648

#4648

From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1986 22:50

10 lines
1115 bytes

In article <1724@ncoast.UUCP> btb@ncoast.UUCP (Brad Banko) writes:
>		if (.not. (i .le. n)) goto (end of loop)
>rather than into the much more efficient:
>		if (i .gt. n) goto (end of loop)

Ratfor was deliberately designed to be as simple as possible,
with the understanding that the Fortran compiler would perform
optimizations.  If your Fortran compiler cannot perform the
above optimization, then it must be pretty puny.  Beefing up
the compiler would be much better than complicating Ratfor.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <5401@brl-smoke.ARPA>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn

References: <1724@ncoast.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: better ratfor ?
Message-ID: <5401@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 21-Nov-86 17:50:39 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.5401
Posted: Fri Nov 21 17:50:39 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Nov-86 21:14:12 EST
References: <1724@ncoast.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Distribution: comp.org.decus
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10
Keywords: ratfor, fortran, optimize, f77

Reply to Parent Message