From bensch@informatik.tu-muenchen.de Fri Aug  5 19:56:49 1994
Received: from tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA12731
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>); Fri, 5 Aug 1994 17:59:02 +0200
Received: by tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
	 via suspension id <326467>; Fri, 5 Aug 1994 17:58:48 +0200
Received: from hphalle0.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ([131.159.4.1])
	 by tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
	 with SMTP id <326456>; Fri, 5 Aug 1994 17:57:28 +0200
Received: by hphalle0.informatik.tu-muenchen.de id <209306>; Fri, 5 Aug 1994 17:57:04 +0200
From: Ewald Bensch <bensch@informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
To: lenke@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Subject: Re:  (SC22WG5.604) Re: Exception Handling Proposal (Ref. N974)
Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Message-Id: <94Aug5.175704mesz.209306@hphalle0.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
Date: 	Fri, 5 Aug 1994 17:56:49 +0200
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29


---------  Received message begins Here  ---------

> From SC22WG5-request@dkuug.dk Tue Aug  2 20:07:01 1994
> Received: from tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ([131.159.0.81])
> 	 by hphalle0.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
> 	 with SMTP id <209251>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 20:06:56 +0200
> Received: from gmdzi.gmd.de ([129.26.8.90])
> 	 by tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
> 	 with SMTP id <326462>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 20:06:26 +0200
> Received: from dkuug.dk by gmdzi.gmd.de with SMTP id AA11882
>   (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4 for <fortran-ak@gmd.de>); Tue, 2 Aug 1994 20:04:52 +0200
> Received: by dkuug.dk id AA20630
>   (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for SC22WG5-list); Tue, 2 Aug 1994 19:41:23 +0200
> Message-Id: <199408021741.AA20630@dkuug.dk>
> Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 1994 19:40:44 +0200
> From:	jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid)
> X-Sequence: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk 604
> Errors-To: SC22WG5-request@dkuug.dk
> To:	Karl-Heinz.Rotthaeuser@gmd.de
> Subject: (SC22WG5.604) Re: Exception Handling Proposal (Ref. N974)
> Cc:	SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
> X-Charset: LATIN1
> X-Char-Esc: 29
> Status: R
> 
> 
> Thank you for your comments on the exception handling proposal. 
> Unfortunately, you were not looking at the current version, which
> is pp 166-180 of N995. Several changes were made at the Lake Tahoe
> meeting, one of which was to remove the CHECK statement since its 
> effect is available with an enable construct with an empty body and
> no handler. I believe that this means that your problem 1 is addressed.
> The effect of adding immediate is as if we had:
> 
> ENABLE (OVERFLOW)
>         A1      =       B1*C1
>         ENABLE (OVERFLOW)
>         END ENABLE
>         A2      =       B2*C2
>         ENABLE (OVERFLOW)
>         END ENABLE
>         .
>         .
>         .
>         A10     =       B10*C10
>         ENABLE (OVERFLOW)
>         END ENABLE
> 
> HANDLE
> ...
> END ENABLE
> 
> I do not think any reodering by the compiler is now permitted. Of
> course, as Rich Bleicamp points out, this may make the execution very
> slow, but you do not use immediate if speed is your concern.
> 
> 
> I am afraid that looking at your other points will have to wait 
> until tommorrow.
> 
> Best wishes,
> John. 
>