From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Oct 20 13:15:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 1FDC8C178E4; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:15:44 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 963 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:15:42 CET DST Received: from ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F05C178E3 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:15:42 +0200 (CET DST) 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]:48636) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1N0CRD-00038c-3Q (Exim 4.70) (return-path ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:59:35 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1N0CRD-0005c3-1c (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:59:35 +0100 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.2); 20 Oct 2009 11:59:35 +0100 Date: 20 Oct 2009 11:59:35 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: ukfortran@accu.org, sc22wg5@open-std.org Subject: Standard intrinsics and coarrays Message-ID: X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Am I along the right lines here? We seem to have forgotten to specify how the intrinsic procedures may be used as far as their use in unordered images is concerned - or, at least, I can't find anything. However, I don't think that there is much of a problem. 13.5 paragraph 2 and Table 13.1 is the starting point, and a lot of my proposal is already implied for those of classes E, ES and PS by other wording. Those of class A are already covered. I have drafted the hard line on random numbers; it would be possible to make the 'shall not' conditional on the processor dependence, but that is messy. Proposal: In 13.5, Standard generic intrinsic procedures, after Table 13.1, add the new paragraphs: EXECUTE_COMMAND_LINE shall not be be called in two unordered images. RANDOM_SEED shall not be be called in two unordered images, nor shall RANDOM_NUMBER and RANDOM_SEED be called in two unordered images. It is processor dependent whether all images use a common generator or whether each image uses a separate one. CPU_TIME, DATE_AND_TIME, GET_COMMAND, GET_COMMAND_ARGUMENT, GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE and SYSTEM_CLOCK may be called in unordered images, but it is processor dependent whether the results they return are dependent on which image calls them. All other standard intrinsic procedures may be called in unordered images, subject only to their argument use following the rules in 8.5.2. 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