From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Fri Apr 18 20:42:55 2014
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id E386935868C; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:42:55 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com (mail-pd0-f182.google.com [209.85.192.182])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B127358351
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:42:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id y10so1686315pdj.13
        for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 11:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from
         :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references
         :to;
        bh=/9mxI8LOvRsP0qy/WHf8kIMamNMI7Tg33EifWgvYV6I=;
        b=GVCK9wlFsdj1xAaJvSneAMzaHETsPq0pFO7M+lN5kudd8Oy5UHg4LUaFsp7SoHHfqg
         5+K39yHgfJQNh0ioqK8slvTFUlZeMOkIDSiG8BlHSVWqUhw9Tmu3aLPbj8daihGWZ/1n
         7xskApB8teAltxe6y8bnUHDF9iRfTd2fnnxwleRNNKpKOc3rlmp2eRNGNcpCBmu6VcJ+
         EAcSgTCgQocNNBJjAz4ibGUHoXGqrjKjp8kO8S1+4C6Ny0M1oA9JWhMi2gnoFGruvhVe
         6QcQYLRK0oXc1SHrICcnAklSIgA4xDk+Ix6gYkXSVeYzjS0aoiky6FbfwAOAwe4cjVCm
         XZtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn6s5oGkzP4IjbPp6jeN43tc8dLT9iXFgNL/2gY+wMUTlUPk4I2RGkw1FE1A+Fa/uqBuxIJ
X-Received: by 10.66.251.233 with SMTP id zn9mr23608265pac.67.1397846572890;
        Fri, 18 Apr 2014 11:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sr13-f51ef738c5.stanford.edu (sr13-f51ef738c5.Stanford.EDU. [171.64.172.44])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ak1sm61337732pbc.58.2014.04.18.11.42.51
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Fri, 18 Apr 2014 11:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5221) [ukfortran] Ballot on draft DTS
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Damian Rouson <sourcery@rouson.net>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <20140415075245.363AC3583C0@www.open-std.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 11:42:50 -0700
Cc: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <54161D48-0412-4661-BF11-F543A6CA532A@rouson.net>
References: <20140312154430.1B7899EB083@www.open-std.org> <20140415075245.363AC3583C0@www.open-std.org>
To: fortran standards email list for J3 <j3@mailman.j3-fortran.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Apr 15, 2014, at 12:35 AM, Malcolm Cohen <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp> wrote:
>=20
> In particular,
> (1) the collectives CO MAX, CO MIN, CO REDUCE, CO SUM, should be split =
into two=20
> forms, one with RESULT, one without.  The one with RESULT should have =
SOURCE as=20
> INTENT(IN), the one without should have SOURCE as INTENT(INOUT).  =
RESULT must=20
> not be optional.  The SOURCE INTENT(IN) form should have no coarray =
restrictions=20
> on SOURCE.

Is the reasoning here that there is a potential performance advantage =
that can be preserved in the =93INTENT(IN)=94 case?  If so, I agree that =
performance is paramount.  If not, please explain the reasoning for =
wanting two forms rather than having RESULT optional.=20

Damian=