From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22629 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2002 20:33:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22622 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2002 20:33:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Oct 2002 20:33:33 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id A8670F2CAF; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:33:32 -0400 (EDT) To: dewar@gnat.com, toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl Subject: Re: Type based aliasing Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, nathan@codesourcery.com Message-Id: <20021005203332.A8670F2CAF@nile.gnat.com> Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 14:21:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00367.txt.bz2 <<`Define' in Fortran-speak is to `have a value assigned to it and all of the entities that are associated with it'. Assignment is one way to cause problems here, but not the only one. >> OK, sure, I was using assignment loosely, but the statement that "Fortran rules don't allow arguments to overlap at all" is definitely misleading, since it is just fine for arguments to overlap providing that no definitions occur in an aliased situation.