From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Jun 12 03:00:10 2014 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 01038358708; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 03:00:09 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A8835687A for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 03:00:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Maru6 (218-42-159-105.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by nag-j.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5C100Gk045388 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:00:03 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp) Message-ID: <575E02FAA68A4D29B0F487461D7C0E1E@Maru6> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5" References: <4AA982B1265F43408480F737BE12F4D35F8D9E05@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com> <20140606180710.EAAFA3571CA@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20140606180710.EAAFA3571CA@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5252) FW: J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #30- due 13-Jun-2014 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:59:57 +0900 Organization: =?utf-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Not a vote, but my opinions nonetheless... The following Fortran interpretations are being balloted: Yes No Number Title -Y- --- F08/0099 VOLATILE in specification expressions -Y- --- F08/0100 IMPORT statement and prior explicit declaration -Y- --- F08/0101 NAMELIST and multiple occurrences of a variable -C- --- F08/0102 MERGE and polymorphism -C- --- F08/0103 Pointers to internal procedures with different host instances -C- --- F08/0104 IEEE Inquiry Functions --- -N- F08/0105 Is the ASYNCHRONOUS attribute allowed with the VALUE attribute? -Y- --- F08/0106 MOVE_ALLOC for a remote array COMMENT on F08/0102: I think it is clear that (E) is polymorphic. Being polymorphic is not something that depends on a runtime value or a dynamic type; the statement (E) is only not-standard-conforming if it is actually executed with Y and X having different dynamic types. We could fix the example (add a new allocatable W, and W=t2(), and change example E to do a merge between Y and W instead of Y and X) but it doesn't seem particularly important. COMMENT on F08/0103: The current answer (the "right answer") is the only one that is at all useful to the user IMO. The optimisability of internal procedures *as actual arguments* when they only reference SAVEd variables (i.e. they are not thread-safe) is the wrong concern. The whole point of passing an internal procedure as an actual argument is to enable stuff like thread-safety otherwise the user can just pass a module procedure instead. Anyway, we took this straw vote, including both the options of making ASSOCIATED(x,y) when they refer to the "same" internal procedure either processor-dependent or prohibited. That straw vote was 5-1-1-1-1 (right answer - wrong answer - processor dependent - prohibited - undecided). If we're going to retake it, not that I think we should, I would prefer the current answer. NO vote on F08/0105: ASYNCHRONOUS dummy arguments have a bunch of constraints that, and I quote "are designed to avoid forcing a processor to use the so-called copy-in/copy-out argument passing mechanism" As currently written that is not true for ASYNCHRONOUS+VALUE because VALUE forces the copy-in part of that mechanism. Furthermore, those restrictions (C1238 to C1240) do not make sense for ASYNCHRONOUS+VALUE because the dummy is not associated with the actual argument but with a copy thereof. We fixed this for VOLATILE by prohibiting it to be combined with VALUE. That is by far the easiest and most sensible fix for ASYNCHRONOUS. Alternatively, rewrite those constraints to make sense e.g. "with/has the ASYNCHRONOUS" -> "without/does-not-have the VALUE attribute and with/has the ASYNCHRONOUS" several times, and fix the NOTE so it is not "at best misleading". Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.