From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Oct 20 17:42:52 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 6B6A5C178E4; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:42:52 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org 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 6C880C178E3 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:42:48 +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]:57578) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1N0GrI-0003c5-5F (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:42:48 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1N0GrI-0000vB-Jn (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:42:48 +0100 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.2); 20 Oct 2009 16:42:48 +0100 Date: 20 Oct 2009 16:42:48 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: "sc22wg5@open-std.org" Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4093) (j3.2006) Standard intrinsics and coarrays Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20091020151813.AB917C178E3@www2.open-std.org> References: <20091020111544.C0F5CC178E3@www2.open-std.org> <4ADDC3E1.4030007@cray.com> <20091020151813.AB917C178E3@www2.open-std.org> 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 This is a redraft, hopefully fixing all of the mistakes and ambiguities pointed out by Bill. 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 be' 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: It is processor dependent whether EXECUTE_COMMAND_LINE may be called on any image other than image 1. If RANDOM_SEED is called in a segment A, and either RANDOM_SEED or RANDOM_NUMBER is called in segment B, then segments A and B shall be ordered. It is processor dependent whether all images use a common generator or whether each image uses a separate one. It is processor dependent whether the results returned from CPU_TIME, DATE_AND_TIME, GET_COMMAND, GET_COMMAND_ARGUMENT, GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE and SYSTEM_CLOCK are dependent on which image calls them. NOTE 13.x It is unspecified whether images use synchronized clocks, whether CPU_TIME returns a per-image or per-program value, whether all images run in the same time zone, whether the count rate and maximum in SYSTEM_CLOCK are the same for all images, and whether all images run in the same command environment. It is likely that they will behave differently on shared memory systems and some distributed memory ones. The use of all other standard intrinsic procedures in unordered segments is subject only to their argument use following the rules in 8.5.2. Regards, Nick Maclaren.