From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Jun 8 23:11:15 2012 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 A582735696A; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 23:11:15 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 344 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:11:14 CEST Received: from exprod6og112.obsmtp.com (exprod6og112.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.29]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7473568BD for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 23:11:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from CFWEX01.americas.cray.com ([136.162.34.11]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob112.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT9JqcS7rQUEn/bVCX4dMUpMsEtwKsP2L@postini.com; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:11:14 PDT Received: from fortran.us.cray.com (172.31.19.200) by CFWEX01.americas.cray.com (172.30.88.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:02:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4FD26884.9040901@cray.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:03:00 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fortran standards email list for J3 CC: "Whitlock, Stan" , Malcolm Cohen , sc22wg5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4692) J3/12-147 for meeting #198: interp letter ballot #25 due 8-Jun-2012 References: <20120507002039.DA2493568A2@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20120507002039.DA2493568A2@www.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 Hi Stan, Below is my ballot. I've copied you and Malcolm separately in case the j3 server is unavailable. Sorry if you get duplicates. Cheers, Bill Vote from Bill Long on Interp Ballot 25: Yes No Number Title -Y- --- F03/0017 Dummy procedure pointers and PRESENT --- -N- F03/0018 Multiple identical specific procedures in type-bound generic interfaces -Y- --- F03/0019 Multiple identical specific procedures in generic interface blocks -Y- --- F03/0021 What kind of token is a stop code? -Y- --- F03/0046 Unlimited polymorphic pointers in common blocks -C- --- F03/0053 The BIND attribute for C_PTR and C_FUNPTR -Y- --- F03/0065 Relational equivalence -C- --- F03/0084 IEEE_SET_ROUNDING_MODE in a subroutine -Y- --- F03/0096 Can a read statement change the unit value? -Y- --- F03/0103 Restrictions on dummy arguments not present for polymorphic type or parameterized derived type -Y- --- F03/0116 indistinguishable specifics for a generic interface with use association -Y- --- F03/0118 Are lower bounds of assumed-shape arrays assumed? -Y- --- F03/0120 When are parameterized sequence types the same type? -Y- --- F03/0121 Precise FP semantics of the REAL intrinsic -Y- --- F08/0004 Is TARGET argument of ASSOCIATED a pointer or nonpointer dummy? -C- --- F08/0008 IEEE exceptions for intrinsic functions -Y- --- F08/0031 PURE INTENT(OUT) finalization -Y- --- F08/0032 PURE FUNCTION result finalization -Y- --- F08/0038 Are pointless restrictions on DIM arguments intended? --- -N- F08/0040 MOVE_ALLOC for coarrays -Y- --- F08/0042 SOURCE= questions -C- --- F08/0043 Executing a type-bound procedure on a coindexed object -Y- --- F08/0048 Sequence association for coarrays -Y- --- F08/0054 Requirements for needing an explicit interface -C- --- F08/0055 G editing for reals -Y- --- F08/0056 Non-polymorphic ALLOCATE with polymorphic SOURCE= -Y- --- F08/0057 Interoperability with empty types -Y- --- F08/0058 ENTRY point RESULT variable -C- --- F08/0059 Auto-targetting requirements -Y- --- F08/0060 Procedure pointer assignment with an EXTERNAL target -Y- --- F08/0061 Description of the CONTIGUOUS attribute misworded? -Y- --- F08/0062 Mixing default initialization with DATA initialization -Y- --- F08/0063 G editing to a narrow output field -Y- --- F08/0064 STATUS of GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE -Y- --- F08/0065 Should certain procedures in intrinsic modules be pure? -Y- --- F08/0066 Are certain expressions with pointer initialization constant? -C- --- F08/0067 Passing arrays of extended type objects -Y- --- F08/0068 Pointer association and extended type arrays -Y- --- F08/0069 Which part of an effective argument becomes undefined? -Y- --- F08/0070 Finalization of INTENT(OUT) arguments -Y- --- F08/0071 Vector subscript target -Y- --- F08/0072 Final subroutines with corank -C- --- F08/0073 Polymorphic auto-targetting Reason for F03/0018 NO vote: Generic resolution is based on differences between the interfaces of the specific procedures in the generic interface. The interface for a specific type-bound procedure is that of the (4.5.5p6), not that of the . In the examples, there is only one (myadd). Ambiguity is not possible if there is only one specific interface. Comment for F03/0053: I agree with John's comment that allowing private components in a BIND(C) type was unwise. Not only does this circumvent the goal of private components, but it would also interfere with a useful addition to interoperability should C ever introduce an idea similar to private struct members. The intent of the original C interoperability was to focus on areas where C and Fortran had comparable features. The list in 15.3.4p1 disallows most of the differences - were private components just overlooked? Comment for F03/0084: Is there a missing line in the example code? It seems like there should have been CALL IEEE_SET_ROUNDING_MODE (IEEE_UP) just before the line Z1 = X*Y Otherwise the code seems pointless since round-to-nearest is the default on most systems. Comment for F08/0008: The new paragraph at [325:12+] seems to lack context at the beginning. I assume we mean "is assigned or returned" as the result of invoking an intrinsic procedure. Reason for F08/0040 NO vote: An image control statement is sufficient to separate execution segments, but does not necessarily imply synchronization. But that is needed in the case where MOVE_ALLOC has coarray arguments and at least one of them is allocated on entry. You need all of the images to call the routine; effectively there is an internal SYNC ALL. Otherwise, if image X is calling MOVE_ALLOC while image Y is trying to reference the coarray being "moved", the references would likely be to the wrong memory locations. All of the images need to collectively agree on the new memory location. The edits do not seem to adequately cover this situation. Comment for F08/0043: The restriction on having a polymorphic coindexed actual argument only correspond to a dummy argument that is not polymorphic is quite restrictive since essentially all type-bound procedures have polymorphic passed-object arguments (C456). When I tried the example program with one compiler, it compiled and executed without error and produced the expected output. We might want to consider some relaxation of this restriction in the next standard. Removing the redundant constraint C1229 does not seem to rise to the level of fixing an error in the standard. This could be put off to the next standard. Comment for F08/0055: Given the complexity of the edits, it would be quite helpful if the answer to the questions included the expected output based on the new text. Comment for F08/0059: The edit for [295:16-17] seems to make the edit in F08/0073 redundant. Comment for F08/0067: I think the answer is fine for standards purposes. However, just as an implementation observation, the test case is likely to work anyway since a polymorphic dummy argument will trigger a pass-by-descriptor, and the shape information is likely to be available in the descriptor. Comment for F08/0073: The edit at [295:16-17] in F08/0059 makes the edit in this interp unnecessary. -- Bill Long longb@cray.com Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101