From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Dec 10 02:05:01 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 D75D3CA343D; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:05:01 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (sentrion2.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.106]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5668C178DA for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:04:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from mprox1.jpl.nasa.gov (mprox1.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.140]) by mail.jpl.nasa.gov (Switch-3.3.2mp/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id mBA14sNE027218 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:04:55 GMT Received: from [137.79.7.57] (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by mprox1.jpl.nasa.gov (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id mBA14qEE023268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:04:53 -0800 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3807) Response on the TR29113 draft N1761 From: Van Snyder Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov To: sc22wg5 In-Reply-To: <20081209223135.06FA6C178D6@www2.open-std.org> References: <20081209223135.06FA6C178D6@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Yes Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:04:52 -0800 Message-Id: <1228871092.15904.980.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-8.el5_2.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57] X-Source-Sender: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 14:31 -0800, Reinhold Bader wrote: > >> (A) C calling a Fortran implementation: > >> It would be the responsibility of the processor to > >> * automatically generate a wrapper which performs any updates covered by > >> CFI_update_fdesc in the present design, unwraps the entity CFI_desc_t > >> and hands on the Fortran descriptor field to the Fortran-local > procedure > >> call. > > Sounds nice (for the user). If you can convince the vendors it is a good > > idea :-) I think this is equivalent to doing away with the separate concepts of Fortran and C argument descriptors, and just specifying C argument descriptors. Processors can either pass arguments differently when BIND(C) is in play, or write the wrappers and hide them. Van