Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #3502
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: modifying constants in Fortran and elsewhere |
| Date | 2023-07-15 10:57 +0000 |
| Organization | Compilers Central |
| Message-ID | <23-07-006@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <23-07-003@comp.compilers> |
gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> schrieb: > A potential bug since the earliest days of Fortran is passing a > constant to a subroutine, and then changing the value of the dummy > argument. > > In at least some Fortran system, this modifies the value of a constant > used other places in a program. Could come in handy if the value of PI should change during the excecution of the program :-) This is a consequence of the standard /360 calling convention. Both arguments and local variables were put in close proximity to the code, if posssible within the range of a base register. It was all read-write, and the compiler optimized duplicate constants. (The explanation above is only for non-reentrant code, which was the usual case for FORTRAN, but they could be made to use reentrant code using a compiler option). > As this was known when PL/I was designed, it is defined such that > modifiable constants are passed to called procedures. C avoids it by > not allowing the & operator on constants. (Though K&R allows > modification of string constants.) You can still try by passing a pointer to a const variable, but chances are you will get a segfault when you try to modify it. > Somehow, in all the years, that feature was never added to Fortran. Fortran has the VALUE attribute for dummy variables now, which generates a local copy of the variable. Compilers differ on how they implement it; passing VALUE arguments as actual value, like C usually does, or passing a pointer and making a local copy are both valid choices. > It is easy to write programs and test for it, but I wonder if there > are any stories for real program that had this bug, and even better, > stories about the difficulty of finding it, or problems caused by it. I actually got bitten by that while using a mainframe for scientific work as a student. It's been a few decades, so I don't recall too many details. It was difficult to find, but I was paid by the hour, so I didn't mind too much :-) [The constant stomping issue far predates S/360. As soon as Fortran II added subroutines on the 704, there were constant arguments you could change by mistake. The problem is that it took quite a while for people to sort out the differences among call by reference, call by value, and call by copy in/out. Fortran on the 70x and S/360 user reference for array arguments, copy in/out for scalars. Algol 60 tried to define its argument passing in an elegant way, and accidentally invented call by name when they meant call by reference. -John]
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
modifying constants in Fortran and elsewhere gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-07-10 19:42 -0700
Re: modifying constants in Fortran and elsewhere Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-07-15 10:57 +0000
Re: modifying constants in Fortran and elsewhere Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2023-07-16 11:56 +0200
Re: modifying constants in Fortran and elsewhere Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-07-16 13:08 +0000
Re: modifying constants in Fortran and elsewhere gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-07-16 19:09 -0700
Re: modifying constants in Fortran and elsewhere gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-07-17 10:51 -0700
Re: modifying constants in Fortran and elsewhere gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-07-16 19:17 -0700
Re: modifying constants in Fortran and elsewhere David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 13:09 +0200
csiph-web