Prev: Problem with automatic reallocation of allocatable scalar on assignment
Next: a wiki entry for gfortran
From: LR on 9 Aug 2010 00:25
Dr Ivan D. Reid wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 21:47:15 +1000, robin <robin51(a)dodo.com.au>
> wrote in <4c5e9948$0$34572$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>: > "Dr Ivan
> D. Reid" <Ivan.Reid(a)ivan.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> | My experience with a Cyber in 1978 was that it had a 60-bit word
>> | but integer multiply/divide only worked up to 48 bits. To shift a 48-bit
>> | integer to 60 bits to add a 5th 12-bit byte I had to use successive adds
>> | (i=i+i).
>> There was a shift instruction that would have done the job in one step.
> In FORTRAN?
An intrinsic function. You can find it here
on page 1-8-4.
From: Nick Maclaren on 9 Aug 2010 03:39
In article <i3n9vq$6e0$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>,
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah(a)ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>I don't have a VS Fortran manual, so it might have changed, but
>likely not, other than removing the feature. For S/360 (and
>successors) it takes one instruction to reference a local variable,
>but two to reference a variable by reference. Call by value
>result is, in most cases, more efficient.
It is often more more efficient, because it is more cache-friendly.
The reason that it isn't much used is fashion, not engineering.
From: Nick Maclaren on 9 Aug 2010 07:32
In article <4c5f685c$0$56742$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>,
robin <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> wrote:
>Instead of making insulting and derogatory remarks about someone else
>when you are shown up to be incorrect, why don't you take a good look
>at yourself !!
I recommend that you read the gospel of Matthew, specifically 7:1-5.
From: feenberg on 9 Aug 2010 09:07
On Aug 9, 12:09 am, LR <lr...(a)superlink.net> wrote:
> mecej4 wrote:
> > It seems to me that the last few posts in this thread (about 64 or 65
> > characters on the CDC) indicate that the colon may have been used as an
> > escape character, somewhat like the backslash, \ , in C, with a pair of
> > backslashes being then needed to signify the literal character.
> > This is speculation on my part, but this may throw some light on why two
> > colons had quite a different effect than the once-repeated effect of a
> > single colon.
> Not quite. For one thing, it's not really colons, just two octal zero
> six bit characters in the last position of a 60 bit word. But you could
> have the line or record or whatever we might call it end before those
> last two characters, for example, for a seven or 17 or 27 etc character
> line, then you'd have three octal zero characters terminate the line.
> For a six or 16 or 26 etc character line, four octal zero characters
> terminate the line and so on. A nine or 19 or 29 etc, character line
> would have had 11 zero octal characters terminate the line. And finally
> a ten or 20 or 30 etc character line would have ten octal zero
> characters terminate the line.
> This implies that if we're to follow Robin's convention, it would really
> be more accurate to say that there were 64 display characters + 11
> termination characters for zero terminated records = 75 characters. But
> of course, CDC referred to them as the 63 and 64 Display character sets.
> As has been pointed out this leads to two problems. 1) You might
> possibly end up with two colons on in the last two positions of a word,
> resulting in a problem. 2) Ending a line with any number of colons using
> Display 64 wasn't possible.
> Appendix A in the PLI reference has some nice tables. The footnotes tell
> more of the story.http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/cdc/cyber/lang/pl1/60388100B_PL_I_Versio...
Anyone interested in the history of character set coding is referred
which is a history of Coded Character Sets from pre-history through
EBCDIC and ASCII, with lots of information about how they came about.
I read it 30 years ago.
From: Harold Stevens on 9 Aug 2010 09:39
In <i3op00$57s$1(a)gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk> Nick Maclaren:
> Matthew, specifically 7:1-5
Leave it to "robin" to quibble now about particular translation minutiae.
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).