From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Fri Feb 12 20:45:45 2010 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 76015C3BA16; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:45:45 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from moene.org (moene.org [82.95.66.103]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9008C3BA0D for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:45:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ident=toon) by moene.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ng1SK-0000x9-9S; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:45:36 +0100 Message-ID: <4B75AFE0.4010604@moene.org> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:45:36 +0100 From: Toon Moene Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk, fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4147) Urgent: letter ballot on interps References: <20100201122928.54FB8C178E4@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20100201122928.54FB8C178E4@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk John Reid wrote: > WG5, > > There are now 28 interpretations ready for WG5 letter vote. This time, I > am making it a 14-day ballot in order that it is complete before the > meeting in Las Vegas starts. I hope this is acceptable to everyone. My reply: Yes No Number Title -Y- --- F95/0098 Are dummy functions returning assumed-length character legal? -Y- --- F03/0022 Coexistence of IEEE and non-IEEE kinds -Y- --- F03/0024 DEALLOCATE and array pointers -Y- --- F03/0034 IEEE_LOGB() -Y- --- F03/0039 HYPOT() -Y- --- F03/0063 Procedure pointers in BLOCK DATA program units -Y- --- F03/0071 Subroutine/function ambiguity in generics -C- --- F03/0078 IEEE_SUPPORT_DATATYPE vs. mathematical equivalence -Y- --- F03/0090 Polymorphic array constructors -Y- --- F03/0112 Attributes allowed for dummy arguments in defined assignments -C- --- F03/0119 Elemental procedures and deferred length character components -Y- --- F03/0122 When do objects of sequence derived type have the same type? -Y- --- F03/0125 Definitions of EXTENDS_TYPE_OF and SAME_TYPE_AS -Y- --- F03/0126 References to VOLATILE variables in pure procedures -Y- --- F03/0127 Duration of procedure execution -Y- --- F03/0129 C_LOC of character substrings -Y- --- F03/0130 Elemental specific intrinsic procedure characteristics -Y- --- F03/0131 SAVE attribute and EQUIVALENCE -Y- --- F03/0132 Unformatted i/o and private components -Y- --- F03/0133 Is unlimited polymorphic allowed in COMMON? -Y- --- F03/0134 Implicit typing of procedure pointers -Y- --- F03/0135 Interaction between RESULT, recursion, and host generic -Y- --- F03/0136 Are subroutines distinguishable from arrays? -Y- --- F03/0137 Dummy procedure type compatibility -Y- --- F03/0138 External as -Y- --- F03/0139 Functions returning procedure pointers -Y- --- F03/0140 Type of nested construct entities -Y- --- F03/0141 More than one specific interface for a procedure Comments: F03/0078: This answer might come back to haunt us. People who want to follow IEEE 754 strictly *need* the assurance that the text of the program is followed verbatim, because, although X(I) / A is mathematically equivalent to X(I) * (1/A), it certainly isn't in IEEE 754 arithmetic (compilers do this to turn division by a loop-invariant into a cheaper multiplication). F03/0119: Do we want to lift the restriction prohibiting example 2 in the future ? Kind regards, -- Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands At home: http://moene.org/~toon/ Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html