> From [log in to unmask] Fri Feb 5 10:08:59 1999
> > > In fact, automatic arrays are far more *convenient*, but far less *safe*,
> > > since, as Van said, there's no way to detect an allocation failure
> > > (usually a stack overflow) in this case. I know -- I've been there.
> > >
> >
> > I still believe that, from a programming point of view, automatic arrays
> > are much neater than allocate/deallocate statements.
Neater = more convenient.
> > I ran into the
> > stack overflow problem right in the first beta of DEC Fortran and since
> > then we tend to have our stack sizes set to 1-2 GB ;-) Not the ideal
> > solution, but no stack overflows until you run out of virtual memory.
I also increase stack size to the max from within the process, but
I would still like to see a diagnostic rather than a program crash
if the program requests more than this -- which does happen with my
programs -- or at least used to until I took the large arrays and
made them ALLOCATABLE instead of automatic.
-P.
*** "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." (B. Yeltsin)***
*********** Peter S. Shenkin; Schrodinger, Inc.; (201)433-2014 ************
*********** [log in to unmask]; http://www.schrodinger.com ***********
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|