From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Oct 26 20:35:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id BED88356908; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:35:00 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (smtp.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.139.105]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413AC3565F8 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:34:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [137.79.7.57] (math.jpl.nasa.gov [137.79.7.57]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p9QIYtj8031848 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256 bits) verified NO) for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:34:56 -0700 Subject: Comments on N1885 From: Van Snyder Reply-To: Van.Snyder@jpl.nasa.gov To: sc22wg5 References: <1319512507.24176.553.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <1319512507.24176.553.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: ALTVIREHTSTAP02.RES.AD.JPL X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-source-ip: 218-42-159-107.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.107] x-source-sender: malcolm@nag-j.co.jp x-spamrefid: str=0001.0A090209.4EA76FE2.0037,ss=1,fgs=0 x-spamclassfication-commtouch: not spam Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Yes Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:34:55 -0700 Message-Id: <1319654095.24176.574.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-19.el5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AUTH: Authorized Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk I have a few (possibly misguided) comments on N1885. 5.1p3 Note 5.2: Replace "within Fortran code" by "for a Fortran procedure" 5.4.2p1: It seems to be OK for a processor to decide that pure real function xyz ( x ) integer, intent(in) :: x xyz = x + 1.0 end function xyz is an asynchronous communication initiation or completion procedure. 6.3p1: With the being there's no place to write explicit lower bounds. Therefore, all elements of the LBOUND result would be 1. The last sentence ought to be something like "The value of the lower bound of each dimension of the dummy argument is 1, and the value of the upper bound of dimension N of the dummy argument is equal to the result of applying the SIZE intrinsic inquiry function to the actual argument with DIM=N specified." 6.4.1p1: I don't understand how the expression can work. 6.4.3p1: After "result" insert "of UBOUND(ARRAY,RANK(ARRAY),[KIND])". 8.3.4p6: It's not obvious what attribute code ought to be used for an assumed-length character scalar. CFI_attribute_assumed is probably the correct one, but (if so) the description ought to say so. 8.3.5.2p3: The symbol $r$ appears without explanation. After "array" insert "of rank $r$". 8.3.5.2p2, description of "subscripts": Is the order of subscripts the Fortran order or the C order? 8.3.5.2p5: The example would be more informative if the subscripts were different. Inquiring minds might realize that Fortran and C subscripts have opposite ordering, and wonder which order they ought to appear in the subscripts array. 8.3.5.3p1: The style for descriptions in 1539-1 is telegraphic, and in active rather than passive voice. Replace "Allocates" with "Allocate". 8.3.5.3p2, descriptions of "lower_bounds" and "upper_bounds": Is the order of elements in the arrays the order of C array bounds or Fortran array bounds? 8.3.5.3p4: Is dv->elem_len updated if no error is detected? 8.3.5.3p7: The example would be more informative if the bounds were different. Inquiring minds might realize that Fortran and C bounds have opposite ordering, and wonder which order they ought to appear in the lower and upper arrays. 8.3.5.4p1: The style for descriptions in 1539-1 is telegraphic, and in active rather than passive voice. Replace "Deallocates" with "Deallocate". 8.3.5.5p1: The style for descriptions in 1539-1 is telegraphic, and in active rather than passive voice. Replace "Establishes" with "Establish". 8.3.5.5 generally: It's not obvious how to establish an assumed-length character scalar. 8.3.5.5p2, description of "extents": Is the order of extents the Fortran order or the C order? 8.3.5.7p1: The style for descriptions in 1539-1 is telegraphic, and in active rather than passive voice. Replace "Updates" with "Update". 8.3.5.7p2, description of "lower_bounds" and "upper_bounds": Is the order of elements in the arrays the order of C array bounds or Fortran array bounds? What is "the given array?" Should this be "the array described by the descriptor dv?" Is it OK for the number of elements to be > source->rank? 8.3.5.7p2, description of "strides": Is the order of elements in the array the order of C array bounds or Fortran array bounds? Is it OK for the number of elements to be > source->rank? 8.3.5.8p1: The style for descriptions in 1539-1 is telegraphic, and in active rather than passive voice. Replace "CFI_select part updates" with "Update". 8.3.5.8p2: It's not obvious how (or even if it's possible) to select a substring of a character array. 8.3.5.9p1: The style for descriptions in 1539-1 is telegraphic, and in active rather than passive voice. Replace "CFI_setpointer part updates" with "Update". 8.3.8p5 Note 8.12: "bind(c)" should be "bind(c,name='Cfun')", or "Cfun" in the narrative should be "cfun". 8.3.9p2,p3(1): "BIND" should be "BIND(C)" 9.11p1: Values specified by attribute macros should be in the list.