From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Nov 12 09:57:44 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 BF0EACA343B; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:57:44 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0091AC178D9 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:57:42 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:37016) by ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1L0BXi-0005g1-Ou (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:57:42 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1L0BXi-0003xz-Mm (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:57:42 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.1); 12 Nov 2008 08:57:42 +0000 Date: 12 Nov 2008 08:57:42 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3662) (j3.2006) N1755: Request for new features from MPI Forum Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20081111224927.8201CC178D9@www2.open-std.org> References: <49137AD3.1070402@lrz.de> <20081111214622.271B9C178D6@www2.open-std.org> <20081111223447.BD40BC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20081111224927.8201CC178D9@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Nov 11 2008, Aleksandar Donev wrote: > > 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. Eh? What about NOTE 12.22? It forces a copy in any case where call by reference could lead to it changing its value in the middle of the procedure. That is obviously incompatible with the whole purpose of VOLATILE. > 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. Bill has explained this one. Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679