From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue May 28 19:55:52 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 DF6AF356E98; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:55:52 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F243568DE for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:55:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from CFWEX01.americas.cray.com ([136.162.34.11]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUaTvlXR/3VPY7l+oDjUQ0DZXEZ2M9F+s@postini.com; Tue, 28 May 2013 10:55:51 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 14.2.342.3; Tue, 28 May 2013 12:55:31 -0500 Message-ID: <51A4F07C.2050608@cray.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:59:24 -0500 From: Bill Long Reply-To: Organization: Cray Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sc22wg5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5003) AW: Corrections to TS29113 References: <20130527194800.755D0356E40@www.open-std.org> <20130528064313.2D3EA356EC9@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Hopefully reducing the confusion: 1) An assumed-rank dummy argument may have the allocatable or pointer attribute. This is based on these not being in the list of prohibited attributes in C535a. It is also clearly the intent based on the text in 6.3p1. 2) The model for assumed-rank that is not allocatable or pointer is an assumed-shape array. Both assumed-shape and assumed-rank that is nonpointer nonallocatable come under the CFI_attribute_other category in Table 8.1. There is not way for the C function to distinguish these cases. 3) If the procedure with the assumed-rank argument also has BIND(C) then the argument passing is implemented as a pointer to a C descriptor. If the argument is not a pointer or allocatable, then the lower bounds in the descriptor are zero, as stated in 8.3.3. 4) If the procedure with the assumed-rank argument does not have BIND(C) and the argument is not a pointer or allocatable, then it should be treated like a Fortran assumed-shape array with no lower bounds specified and would have lower bounds of 1, a specified in the LBOUND intrinsic in F2008. That text we not modified by the TS. 5) The proposed edit for the end of 6.3p1 is inconsistent with (3) above. The lower bound value was intentionally omitted in 6.3p1. Cheers, Bill On 5/28/13 11:31 AM, Daniel C Chen wrote: > > 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 > > Inactive hide details for "Bader, Reinhold" ---05/28/2013 > 02:43:26---Hello Daniel, Von: j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org > [mail"Bader, Reinhold" ---05/28/2013 02:43:26---Hello Daniel, Von: > j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org > [mailto:j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org] Im A > > From: "Bader, Reinhold" > To: WG5 , > Date: 05/28/2013 02:43 > Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5003) AW: Corrections to TS29113 > Sent by: j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Hello Daniel, > > *Von:* j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org > [mailto:j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org] *Im Auftrag von *Daniel C Chen* > Gesendet:* Montag, 27. Mai 2013 23:32* > An:* fortran standards email list for J3* > Cc:* WG5; j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org; Bill Long* > Betreff:* Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5001) Corrections to TS29113 > > "(A) Assumed rank entities. > The Fortran lower bounds of an assumed-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, insert > "If the actual argument is a non-pointer non-allocatable array, the > lower 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. > > No, it is also permitted for it to have the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE > attribute. > > In F2008 standard, An array with the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE attribute > shall have deferred-shape-spec-list by > > C532 An array with the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE attribute shall have an > array-spec that is a deferred-shape-spec-list. > > I didn't find any edit to this constraint to allow assumed-rank to be > pointer or allocatable. Should there be an edit? Even an assumed-rank > dummy argument can be pointer or allocatable, should the edit to 6.3 be > read "If the dummy argument is a non-pointer non-allocatable...." > > As long as the corresponding actual argument is an array, the lower > bounds of the 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 > with low bounds declared other than one. > > To my understanding, all restrictions in paragraph 1 of 6.3 presuppose > assumed-rank dummy entities. > > > > 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_ > > Inactive hide details for "Bader, Reinhold" ---05/27/2013 > 15:50:16---Hello Bill, based on Tobias' implementation experience > as"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" <_Reinhold.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) 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 > interop 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________________________________________________ > J3 mailing list > J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org > http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 > > > > _______________________________________________ > J3 mailing list > J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org > http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 > -- 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