Re: Optimization of Uncommon Code (Was Java ByteCode ...)

dlmoore@ix.netcom.com (David L Moore)
13 Jul 1996 21:57:08 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: Java virtual machine as target language for C/C++ kik@zia.cray.com (1996-05-08)
Optimization of Uncommon Code (Was Java ByteCode ...) dlmoore@ix.netcom.com (1996-06-30)
Re: Optimization of Uncommon Code (Was Java ByteCode ...) wws@renaissance.cray.com (Walter Spector) (1996-07-01)
Re: Optimization of Uncommon Code (Was Java ByteCode ...) ok@cs.rmit.edu.au (1996-07-04)
Re: Optimization of Uncommon Code (Was Java ByteCode ...) grout@polestar.csrd.uiuc.edu (1996-07-05)
Re: Optimization of Uncommon Code (Was Java ByteCode ...) dlmoore@ix.netcom.com (1996-07-13)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: dlmoore@ix.netcom.com (David L Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Jul 1996 21:57:08 -0400
Organization: Netcom
References: 96-05-061 96-07-021 96-07-040
Keywords: Fortran, code, history

> The Fortran 66 standard went further: COMMON blocks could be stack
> allocated. This was to allow data overlays as well as code overlays.


There was even a Fortran compiler that did this - from a firm called ABSOFT.
I believe it originally ran on an Apple 2 (making it something of a dancing
Bear) but when I used it, it had been ported to Unix.


Naturally, all my code broke.


This was easy to fix by including all the common blocks in the main
program but the running code spent so long looking up common block
names in a symbol table every time it entered a procedure, that the
resulting program was too slow to be useable.


--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.