From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Sat Mar 26 19:02:17 2011
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 466A3C178DC; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:02:17 +0100 (CET)
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.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.55])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C41C178DA
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:02:13 +0100 (CET)
X-Trace: 588417996/mk-filter-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/79.74.77.161/None/John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 79.74.77.161
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk
X-SMTP-AUTH: 
X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM
X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.18) Gecko/20110320 SeaMonkey/2.0.13
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlECADwpjk1PSk2h/2dsb2JhbAAMmF2WYLllhWkEjHaDSA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,248,1299456000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="588417996"
Received: from 79-74-77-161.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([79.74.77.161])
  by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2011 18:02:12 +0000
Message-ID: <4D8E2A23.8050805@stfc.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:02:11 +0000
From: John Reid <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.18) Gecko/20110320 SeaMonkey/2.0.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4420)  WG informal ballot
References: <20110303174947.DD0CAC3BA01@www2.open-std.org> <20110325193010.B3704C178DA@www2.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110325193010.B3704C178DA@www2.open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Jim Xia wrote:
>
>  >
>  > Please answer the following question "Is N1814 ready for forwarding
> to SC22
>  > as the PDTR?" in one of these ways.
>  >
>  > 1) Yes.
>  > 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes.
>  > 3) No, for the following reasons.
>  > 4) Abstain.
>
>
>
> No, for the following reasons
>
> 1.) allow the same C descriptor to be used in CFI_setpointer(). This is
> a bad idea to begin with, and will cause grief in compiler optimizers.

Do you mean that ptr_dv and source should not be allowed to point to the 
same C descriptor?  Adding such a restriction seems reasonable to me.

> 2.) there are apparent overlapping functionality between
> CFI_setpointer() and CFI_section(). It's confusing to understand exactly
> which does what, or when to use which.

Please look at what I have proposed in my vote. Is this OK?

 > It's also not clear to me which
 > one will result in zero-based array section or one-based array
 > section.

I don't see the problem. The lower bounds are held explicitly in the C 
descriptor.

> 3.) allow Fortran ALLOCATABLE variables to be allocated on one side (C
> or Fortran) and then deallocated from the other side. This likely will
> cause many implementation difficulties.

I expect the vendor to make CFI_allocate and CFI_deallocate call Fortran 
code to do the actual allocations and deallocations, so that they all 
happen on the Fortran side.

Best wishes,

John.