From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Nov 11 23:49:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 5E2A8CA3433; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:49:27 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from smtp.llnl.gov (nspiron-3.llnl.gov [128.115.41.83]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D65DC178D9 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:49:25 +0100 (CET) X-Attachments: None X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5430"; a="48921986" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,586,1220252400"; d="scan'208";a="48921986" Received: from cyrus2.llnl.gov ([128.15.97.105]) by smtp.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2008 14:49:23 -0800 From: Aleksandar Donev Organization: LLNL Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3661) [ukfortran] N1755: Request for new features from =?iso-8859-1?q?MPI=09Forum?= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:49:23 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 Cc: WG5 References: <49137AD3.1070402@lrz.de> <20081111214622.271B9C178D6@www2.open-std.org> <20081111223447.BD40BC178D9@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20081111223447.BD40BC178D9@www2.open-std.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline To: Undisclosed.Recipients: ; Message-Id: <200811111449.23586.donev1@llnl.gov> Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Hi, > >> Consider the restrictions on VOLATILE arguments (e.g. no VALUE and no > >> INTENT(IN), and the proposal to require it to be set in all scopes or > >> none). How many of those would you need to add to ASYNCHRONOUS in order > >> to close loopholes opened by your proposal? > > > >Most of those restrictions apply to *both* VOLATILE and ASYNCHRONOUS (see > >Clause 12). If they don't, it is probably an existing bug in the standard! > > Those don't, and it's not a bug, if you think why the restrictions are > there. They don't need to apply to ASYNCHRONOUS, but do to VOLATILE. Ah, finally someone that actually understands why those restrictions are there!!! I asked about a few of them several times and no one gave an answer, and we already changed one of them a couple of meetings ago at my request (concerning copy in/out and VOLATILE/ASYNCHRONOUS, see paper 08-165r1.txt from meeting 184). Anyway, I found only two cases of relevance where VOLATILE and ASYNCHRONOUS were not both included: 1. "C557 An entity with the VALUE attribute shall not have the ... VOLATILE attribute." Van wrote a paper that this is stupid and should be deleted. I cannot remember if it passed. I supported it. 2. "C559 An entity with the VOLATILE attribute shall be a variable that is not an INTENT (IN) dummy argument." Please explain this one to me. Are there other examples? Thanks, Aleks -- Aleksandar Donev, Ph.D. Lawrence Postdoctoral Fellow @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory High Performance Computational Materials Science and Chemistry E-mail: donev1@llnl.gov Phone: (925) 424-6816 Fax: (925) 423-0785 Address: P.O.Box 808, L-367, Livermore, CA 94551-9900 Web: http://cherrypit.princeton.edu/donev