From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue May 12 14:21:27 2009 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 10760C178DF; Tue, 12 May 2009 14:21:27 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-filter-4-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-4-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.100.55]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F433C178D9 for ; Tue, 12 May 2009 14:21:02 +0200 (CET DST) X-Trace: 193786843/mk-filter-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/88.104.211.9/None/d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 88.104.211.9 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-MUA: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AroBAB0GCUpYaNMJ/2dsb2JhbAAIzDuCL4FTBQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,182,1241391600"; d="txt'?scan'208";a="193786843" Received: from 88-104-211-9.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([88.104.211.9]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 12 May 2009 13:21:00 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--316808618 From: David Muxworthy Subject: Draft WG5 minutes Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 13:21:19 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk --Apple-Mail-1--316808618 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Herewith the *draft* WG5 minutes. Please let me have any comments, corrections, etc by the end of the week. David --Apple-Mail-1--316808618 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0755; name=N1779-1.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=N1779-1.txt ISO/IEC JTC/SC22/WG5 = N1779-1=0D =0D Minutes of Meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5=0D Hosted by INCITS/PL22.3, the US Member Body for JTC1/SC22=0D in Las Vegas, NV, USA=0D May 4-8, 2009=0D List of Participants:=0D =0D John Reid (JKR Associates, UK) Convenor=0D Dan Nagle (GMU, USA) PL22.3 chair=0D =0D Reinhold Bader (Leibniz Supercomputing Centre, Germany)=0D Malcolm Cohen (NAG, UK)=0D Bob Corbett (Sun, USA)=0D Aleks Donev (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA)=0D Bill Long (Cray, USA)=0D Nick Maclaren (University of Cambridge, UK)=0D Jeanne Martin (formerly Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA)=0D David Muxworthy (BSI, UK)=0D Craig Rasmussen (Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA)=0D Van Snyder (Caltech/JPL, USA)=0D Stan Whitlock (Intel, USA)=0D Jim Xia (IBM, Canada)=0D =0D Note: INCITS/PL22.3 is abbreviated throughout to PL22.3 and its papers=0D= are referenced as 09-nnn. They are available from=0D http://www.j3-fortran.org/=0D WG5 papers are referenced as Nnnnn. They are available from=0D http://www.nag.co.uk/SC22WG5/=0D =0D 1. Opening of the Meeting=0D The meeting opened at 08:00 on Monday 4th May 2009.=0D =0D 2. Opening business=0D 2.1 Introductory remarks from the Convenor=0D Apologies had been received from Masayuki Takata who had been=0D prevented from travelling to the meeting because of the widespread=0D outbreak of swine flu.=0D =0D The convenor thanked PL22.3 for the new hotel and meeting facilities=0D which were an improvement on the previous Las Vegas location. He=0D emphasized that the top priority of the meeting was to review the=0D current draft document and that the meeting would continue until 12:00=0D= on the Friday.=0D =0D 2.2 Welcome from the Host=0D Van Snyder welcomed participants on behalf of PL22.3.=0D =0D 2.3 Local arrangements=0D In view of the relatively tight schedule for this meeting there would=0D be no formal social event.=0D =0D 2.4 Appointments for this meeting=0D The drafting committee would be Reinhold Bader, David Muxworthy=0D (chair), Van Snyder and Jim Xia. David Muxworthy would act as=0D secretary and John Reid as librarian.=0D =0D 2.5 Adoption of the Agenda (N1767)=0D The preliminary agenda was adopted.=0D =0D 2.6 Approval of the Minutes of the Tokyo 2008 Meeting (N1759)=0D The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.=0D =0D 3. Matters arising from the minutes=0D Ref item 5.1: Van Snyder had contacted the Computer History Museum in=0D Mountain View, CA about the possibility of scanning the WG5 and PL22.3=0D= documents belonging to Jeanne Martin; scanning had not proved to be=0D practicable.=0D =0D John Reid said that some older (pre-1996) documents had been put in=0D the WG5 online archive and asked that anyone with electronic copies of=0D= relevant documents should contact him. He was also to contact Walt=0D Brainerd to ask if he had suggestions for expanding the archive.=0D =0D 4. Status of Tokyo 2008 Resolutions (N1758)=0D T5. WG5 Document Archive: See item 3 above.=0D T7. Technical Content of Fortran 2008 CD: This would be the guiding=0D principle for discussions at this meeting.=0D T8. Schedule for Revision: This would be considered later in the = meeting.=0D T9. Interoperability Technical Report: The letter ballot had been=0D held. Production of a revised draft had been given low priority=0D and the document was still being developed.=0D =0D 5. Reports=0D 5.1 SC22 Matters (Convenor)=0D There had been no SC22 meeting since the last WG5 meeting. It was=0D known that there were errors in Technical Corrigendum 4 which was=0D currently being balloted by SC22. It had been established that=0D minor changes could probably be made to the document without its=0D undergoing a second SC22 ballot.=0D =0D 5.2 National Activity Reports (Heads of Delegations)=0D Canada: Nothing significant to report.=0D Germany: Nothing significant to report.=0D Japan: Report is in N1780 (submitted by email)=0D UK: Report is in N1777.=0D US: See item 5.3.=0D =0D 5.3 Report from Primary Development Body (INCITS/PL22.3)=0D The main development activity in the past six months had been to do=0D with coarrays.=0D =0D 5.4 Reports from other Development Bodies (Editors/Heads)=0D See item 4 T9 above.=0D =0D 5.5 Liaison Reports:=0D INCITS/PL22.11 (C): Craig Rasmussen=0D There had been extensive email discussion on C syntax for=0D interoperability.=0D =0D MPI: Craig Rasmussen=0D The MPI Forum was meeting every three months. Work was proceeding on=0D Fortran bindings.=0D =0D UPC: Dan Nagle=0D Interoperability with UPC was under discussion. There had been no=0D developments since the last meeting.=0D =0D IFIP/WG2.5: Van Snyder=0D There had been no meeting of WG2.5 since the last WG5 meeting.=0D =0D OpenMp: Stan Whitlock (for Matthijs van Waveren)=0D Work had started on version 4. A working group was being formed.=0D =0D WG23 (Vulnerabilities): Dan Nagle=0D WG23 was still working through the comments from the SC22 ballot on=0D the PDTR. Work was about to start on the Fortran annex.=0D =0D 6. Consider the latest draft of Fortran 2008 and decide on minor = changes.=0D Three PL22.3 papers had been referred to WG5 for consideration. The=0D outcome of discussion was as follows.=0D - Paper 09-184 "Atomic compare-and-swap": Referred to the=0D Interoperability TR development body.=0D - Paper 09-207 "Intrinsic assignment of scalar to unallocated=0D allocatable array": Withdrawn.=0D - Paper 09-208r1 "Suggested new feature for F2008": There was some=0D discussion as to whether this was a syntax change, an interpretation=0D= or a new feature, leading to straw votes:=0D 1. Should this change be made to F2008?: yes 10, no 0, undecided 4;=0D= 2. Should this also be an interp for F2003?: 0-many-some.=0D The paper was referred to the PL22.3 data subgroup.=0D =0D [PL22.3 mode from 09:20 to 17:00]=0D =0D Paper 09-206 "Reducing the requirement on polymorphic rank equality in=0D= intrinsic assignment" had been referred to WG5. After discussion=0D there was a straw vote:=0D Should this change be pursued in F2008?: 6-0-8.=0D The paper was referred back to PL22.3.=0D =0D = ..........................................................................= .=0D Tuesday=0D =0D [PL22.3 mode from 08:00 to 16:35]=0D =0D John Reid announced that a national activity report had been received=0D from Japan and was on the server as N1780. David Muxworthy said that=0D it had been suggested that the UK act as proxy for Japan in any formal=0D= vote. He was discussing Japan's views further by email.=0D =0D = ..........................................................................= .=0D Wednesday=0D =0D John Reid asked members to look at a new draft Strategic Plan,=0D N1781-1, ready for discussion later in the day.=0D =0D [PL22.3 mode from 08:02 to 16:40]=0D =0D There was a brief discussion on the draft strategic plan. It was=0D decided that another corrigendum for F2003 would be needed and that=0D the proposed timetable for the TR on coarrays should be delayed by six=0D= months. There was inconclusive discussion on the content and schedule=0D= for a future language revision. A revised plan was to be produced.=0D =0D = ..........................................................................= .=0D Thursday=0D =0D John Reid asked members to look at the revised draft Strategic Plan,=0D N1781-2, for discussion later in the day.=0D =0D [PL22.3 mode from 08:02 to 16:55]=0D =0D 7. Review the schedule for Fortran 2008 (N1693)=0D =0D There was a discussion on N1781-2. On item 1 (Fortran 2003) it was=0D agreed that there would be a fifth corrigendum for F2003 later in 2009=0D= and that future corrigenda would relate to F2008. On item 2 (Fortran=0D 2008) it was agreed that the technical content of F2008 would be=0D frozen at 09-007r2 (the outcome from this meeting) plus any subsequent=0D= editorial corrections and clarifications and resolution of=0D inconsistencies. This would require a delay on the schedule set out=0D in N1693. Some members favoured a six-month delay but the general=0D opinion was for a three-month delay. Consequently the WG5 meeting=0D planned for February 2010 would be postponed to June. Thereafter the=0D plan would be to hold an annual meeting in June. The proposed=0D schedules for the two TRs (items 3 and 4) were accepted. The start of=0D= a further revision (item 5) was to be reworded with no resources to be=0D= expended in the next three years.=0D =0D Participants were asked to review the draft resolutions in document=0D N1778-3 for discussion the following day.=0D =0D = ..........................................................................= .=0D Friday=0D =0D There was a discussion on the latest revision of the draft Strategic=0D Plan, N1781-3. Concern was expressed that there would be no WG5=0D meeting during development of the Interoperability TR. After=0D discussion the schedules of both the TR development and the WG5=0D meetings were amended to allow for this, so moving the proposed June=0D 2010 WG5 meeting back to February.=0D =0D Since the informal names of recent Fortran standards had taken the=0D year in which technical development was complete, it was asked whether=0D= the name should now be Fortran 2009. It was thought that technical=0D development was essentially completed at the Tokyo meeting and so the=0D name would remain Fortran 2008.=0D =0D [PL22.3 mode from 08:30 to 09:30]=0D =0D 8. Construct a preliminary draft of the TR on further interoperability =0D= with C. =0D There was a discussion on the Interoperability TR, centring mainly on=0D whether optional arguments should be retained. This led to the straw=0D vote: Remove optional arguments: 1 - retain them: 9; undecided: 3.=0D This direction was referred to the Interoperability TR development=0D group.=0D =0D 9. Consider the Fortran defect reports (interpretations) in J3-006. =0D Interpretations had been taken as part of the PL22.3 business during=0D the meeting. No specific actions had been required for WG5, other=0D than that members had been made aware that there known errors (N1783)=0D in Technical Corrigendum 4 (N1774 and N1775), because of incorrect=0D edits in answers to interpretations, and that the Convenor was=0D pursuing the matter with the SC22 Secretariat. The SC22 ballot was=0D still open, hence member bodies could specify the errors and=0D corrections in their votes.=0D =0D 10. WG5 Business and Strategic Plans=0D 10.1 Goals for 2009-2012=0D This item had been covered under discussion of the draft Strategic=0D Plan earlier in the meeting.=0D =0D 11. Closing Business=0D 11.1 Future meetings=0D It had been decided (see above) that there would be annual summer=0D meetings from 2011 onwards. The tentative offer from Germany for 2011=0D= was accepted, that from Canada was revised to 2012 and one from the UK=0D= was provisionally accepted for 2013.=0D =0D 11.2 Any other business=0D None was raised.=0D =0D 12. Adoption of Resolutions (N1778)=0D Resolutions LV1, LV2, LV7 and LV8 were approved by unanimous acclaim=0D and LV3 and LV6 by unanimous consent. Resolution LV4 (Technical=0D Content of Fortran 2008 FCD) was approved by 9 individual votes to 0=0D with 4 abstentions and by five member body votes to none. Resolution=0D LV5 (Strategic Plans for WG5) was approved by 11 individual votes to 0=0D= with 2 abstentions and by five member body votes to none. Following=0D email discussions with Masayuki Takata throughout the meeting, Japan's=0D= proxy vote was cast in favour of all the resolutions.=0D =0D 13. Adjournment=0D John Reid thanked the local hosts (PL22.3) again for their excellent=0D support during the week. The meeting closed at 10:10 on Friday,=0D May 8, 2009.=0D --Apple-Mail-1--316808618--