Re: "Too many continuation lines" error message (no solution, just comment)

From: Richard Maine (nospam_at_see.signature)
Date: 04/19/04 

Date: 19 Apr 2004 08:20:18 -0700

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:

> Richard Maine wrote:
>
> > glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>
> >>In the F66 days, with static allocation, compilers I knew compiled
> >>DATA to initialize the static data.
>
> > They still do. And anything with initialization is automatically
> > "static". Well, technically it is SAVEd, which doesn't *HAVE* to
> > mean static - I have worked on systems where it didn't, but I
> > know of no systems today where SAVE isn't implemented as static.
>
> I wss never too sure about SAVE. The easy answer is to still
> statically allocate everything, and not worry about SAVE.
> In C, which allows recursion, automatic variables must be
> generated for each instance, and the initial values copied in.

Briefly confused me in talking about the easy answer until I
deduced that you must be talking about an answer for compilers,
as opposed to for programmers; otherwise, you've lost me.

Note that Fortran also has recursion these days. Non-saved
variables in recursive procedures are not allowed to be static.

I know of no current Fortran compilers that implement saved variables
or common (even unsaved common) as anything other than static (well,
at the virtual address level, which isn't as static as static used to
be).

There are plenty of current compilers that, at least by default,
implement non-saved local variables nonstatically.

In the realm of non-current compilers, memory was precious enough
in some older environments that even SAVED variables and COMMON
weren't necessarily static; they might be overlayed and copied
out to disk, while the same memory address was used for something
else. And it was not as transparent as virtual memory; if you
managed, through some tricks, to reference the address at a time
when the data wasn't there, you'd just get the wrong stuff,
rather than causing swapping.

> > Reduced the size of
> > the executable image from 30 mb down to about 1.

> So it was about 29MB of static data? In the F66 days I don't
> think anyone would think about doing that, except possibly
> on a Cray-1.

I didn't add up the arrays, but yes, I conclude that's about how
large they must have been. This wasn't in f66 days. I forget
the exact date, but sometime in the 90's - probably mid 90's.

Though I noted that the programmer was using an identifiably
60's era style in many ways, not just language constructs.
For example, the source code was explicitly designed to be
printed out; the source code documentation was mostly keyed to
page numbers of the printed listing. Somewhat random mix of
f66 and f77 coding styles...with the occasional small bit of
f90, mostly where it was using my library modules. 

-- 
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain

Relevant Pages

  • Re: getting rid of common blocks
    ... Common comes in two kinds, ... the memory had already been assigned by then.. ... Both of the above have been false on almost all Fortran compilers, ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: interpreter vs. compiled
    ... a memory address to successive integers 0..9, ... Is there a reason why you're expecting c.l.p to be your personal tutor ... for Introduction to Compilers? ... Defining your own terms that don't ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)
    ... >> All communication requires the sender and receiver to share a common ... > - some environments ... work the same on compilers I'm likely to encounter -- Micro Focus, IBM, Fujitsu ... works the same on MF, IBM and Fujitsu, that's a universal truth in my universe. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Any plans to remove obsolescent features?
    ... "" as an empty list ... Do you mean common outside of C, ... officially in the standard. ... I didn't say that compilers would have to reject "" as a syntax error; ...
    (comp.std.c)
  • Re: R: GOBACK (was: Perform Thru/Go to vs. Perform - Compile Speed
    ... >> one paragraph name to ENTRY, or breaking the program into smaller ones. ... >> what it looks like in the multithreading demo I just posted. ... All compilers will have the equivalent of reentrant, ... not sharing memory with other threads. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)