Sorry - in my earlier message, instead of

I meant of course

    foo(x+30, 10);

since I want to pass the address, not the value.

The fortran, by the way, is correct, since Fortran always passes
addresses.

David

Irrelevant reminiscence: many years ago, I changed the value of 2 this way.

I had a (Fortran) subroutine which incremented one of its parameters. Later,
I called this subroutine with the constant 2. Later still, I used 2 in an
arithmetic expression: something like,

    ...
    CALL FOO(N, 2, X, Y)
    ...
    J = J + 2
    ...

it took me quite a while to discover that J was being incremented by 3 .....

Ah, those were the days ;-).

Jonathan
(I believe the compiler was "smart" enough to use the same storage for
identical
constants, to save memory.)

Were?? Well, I suppose there has been some progress - under present-day
Solaris, using Sun's Fortran compiler, this program:

      subroutine foo(x)
      x = x + 1
      return
      end

      call foo(2)
      end

produces a run-time error with the message "POSSIBLE ATTEMPT TO MODIFY
CONSTANT" followed by a segmentation fault!

And in "Structured Fortran 77 Programming with Hewlett-Packard
Computers" I read "Since a constant is meant to be a value not subject
to change, it should be used [as an actual argument] in those instances
where the subprogram's computations do not alter it."

Maybe you didn't read the manual.

David

Manual? Manual? We don't need no steeenking manuals!

But I didn't realise the Fortran 77 manual was retrospective back to Fortan
IV
in 1972 :-). I'm afraid my memory for the documentation I didn't have more
than
thirty years ago (gosh, doesn't time fly?) is not complete. But I can still
remember
my bugs! :-).

Did I ever tell you about my (Fortran) draughts (checkers) program which
only had
one known bug? The bug was that it printed the following message:

   "THERE IS A BUG"

The bug was caused by a missing GOTO before the WRITE statement that printed
the message.

However, in view of this bug, it wasn't a bug. In which case it was.

Jonathan