From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon May 27 23:32:28 2013 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 34EA4356EBD; Mon, 27 May 2013 23:32:28 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.137]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D79356898 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 23:32:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:32:08 -0400 Received: from d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.166) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.107) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:32:07 -0400 Received: from d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (d01relay06.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.116]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DECF38C8051 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av05.pok.ibm.com (d01av05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.195]) by d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r4RLW6it44367934 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:32:06 -0400 Received: from d01av05.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av05.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r4RLW6d3023685 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:32:06 -0400 Received: from d25ml04.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml04.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.29.97]) by d01av05.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r4RLW6Vj023677; Mon, 27 May 2013 17:32:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130527194800.755D0356E40@www.open-std.org> References: <20130527194800.755D0356E40@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5001) Corrections to TS29113 X-KeepSent: DC9B32A5:2402B96B-85257B78:00759D51; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org, Bill Long , WG5 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3FP2 SHF22 July 19, 2012 Message-ID: From: Daniel C Chen Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:32:03 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML04/25/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP3|November 15, 2012) at 05/27/2013 17:32:05 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/related; Boundary="0__=0ABBF1EBDFE61BC18f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF1EBDFE61BC1" X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13052721-5806-0000-0000-0000215AF834 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk --0__=0ABBF1EBDFE61BC18f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF1EBDFE61BC1 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="1__=0ABBF1EBDFE61BC18f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF1EBDFE61BC1" --1__=0ABBF1EBDFE61BC18f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF1EBDFE61BC1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable "(A) Assumed rank entities. The Fortran lower bounds of an assumed-rank dummy argument that does no= t have the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE attribute should be one. EDIT to TS29113: In section 6.3, end of para 1, insert "If the actual argument is a non-pointer non-allocatable array, the low= er bounds of the dummy argument have the value one." FIXME: corresponding edit in section 9.7 is needed." An assumed-rank entity is a nonallocatable and nonpointer entity. As lo= ng as the corresponding actual argument is an array, the lower bounds of t= he assumed-rank dummy argument have the value one. I am not sure if the proposed edit to 6.3 covers this as if the dummy argument is not assumed-rank, for instance, it can be explicit shape wi= th low bounds declared other than one. Daniel XL Fortran Development - IBM Toronto Software Lab Phone: 905-413-3056 Tie: 969-3056 Email: cdchen@ca.ibm.com http://www.ibm.com/software/awdtools/fortran/xlfortran From: "Bader, Reinhold" To: Bill Long , Cc: WG5 Date: 05/27/2013 15:50 Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5001) Corrections to TS29113 Sent by: j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org Hello Bill, based on Tobias' implementation experience as well as observations by others, I have assembled a "fix paper draft" for a number of glitches and omissions to the inter= op TS. Since you were going to write a paper on a minor extension anyway (cf. item "D" in the attached draft),= the question is whether to put all this into one paper, or to write a number of separate ones. Furthermore, feedback on the suggestions in the draft is welcome. Best wishes Reinhold [attachment "ts29113_corrections.txt" deleted by Daniel C Chen/Toronto/= IBM] _______________________________________________ J3 mailing list J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 = --1__=0ABBF1EBDFE61BC18f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF1EBDFE61BC1 Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

"(A) Assumed rank entities.
The Fortran lower bounds of an as= sumed-rank dummy argument that does not have the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE= attribute should be one.
EDIT to TS29113:
In section 6.3, end of para 1, in= sert
"If the actual argument is a= non-pointer non-allocatable array, the lower bounds of the dummy argum= ent have the value one."
FIXME: corresponding edit in sect= ion 9.7 is needed."


An assumed-rank entity is a nonal= locatable and nonpointer entity. As long as the corresponding actual ar= gument is an array, the lower bounds of the assumed-rank dummy argument= have the value one.
I am not sure if the proposed edi= t to 6.3 covers this as if the dummy argument is not assumed-rank, for = instance, it can be explicit shape with low bounds declared other than = one.

Daniel


XL Fortran Development - IBM Toronto Software Lab
Phone: 905-413-3056  
Tie: 969-3056  
Email: cdchen@ca.ibm.com
http= ://www.ibm.com/software/awdtools/fortran/xlfortran

3D"Inactive"Bader, Reinhold" ---05/27/2013 15:50:16= ---Hello Bill,  based on Tobias' implementation experience as well= as observations by others, I have as

From: "Bader, Reinhold" <Reinh= old.Bader@lrz.de>
To: Bill Long <longb@cray.com>,
Cc: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>=
Date: 05/27/2013 15:50
Subject: = (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5001) Correctio= ns to TS29113
Sent by: = j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org<= /font>




Hello Bill,

based on Tobias' implementation experience as well as observations by o= thers, I have assembled
a "fix paper draft" for a number of glitches and omissions to= the interop TS. Since you were going to write a
paper on a minor extension anyway (cf. item "D" in the attach= ed draft), the question is whether to
put all this into one paper, or to write a number of separate ones. Fur= thermore, feedback on the
suggestions in the draft is welcome.

Best wishes
Reinhold


[attachment "ts29113_corrections.txt" deleted by Daniel C Che= n/Toronto/IBM] _______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org
http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/= j3

= --1__=0ABBF1EBDFE61BC18f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF1EBDFE61BC1-- --0__=0ABBF1EBDFE61BC18f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF1EBDFE61BC1 Content-type: image/gif; name="graycol.gif" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="graycol.gif" Content-ID: <1__=0ABBF1EBDFE61BC18f9e8a93df938@ca.ibm.com> Content-transfer-encoding: base64 R0lGODlhEAAQAKECAMzMzAAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAIALAAAAAAQABAAAAIXlI+py+0PopwxUbpu ZRfKZ2zgSJbmSRYAIf4fT3B0aW1pemVkIGJ5IFVsZWFkIFNtYXJ0U2F2ZXIhAAA7 --0__=0ABBF1EBDFE61BC18f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF1EBDFE61BC1--