From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sat Dec 6 11:56:33 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 6236B358736; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 11:56:33 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 1644 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:56:32 CET Received: from aserp1050.oracle.com (aserp1050.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAAE356F80 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 11:56:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by aserp1050.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id sB6AT8PB017410 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 10:29:08 GMT Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id sB6AT1Y1006461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 10:29:02 GMT Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB6AT1v3007284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 10:29:01 GMT Received: from abhmp0009.oracle.com (abhmp0009.oracle.com [141.146.116.15]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sB6AT0R6007256 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 10:29:01 GMT Received: from [10.132.140.77] (/10.132.140.77) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 06 Dec 2014 02:29:00 -0800 Message-ID: <5482DA13.2080200@oracle.com> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 02:27:31 -0800 From: Robert Corbett Reply-To: robert.corbett@oracle.com Organization: Oracle America User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS sun4u; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110814 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5361) Straw vote on draft DTS References: <20141108182113.6EC5E3581CE@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20141108182113.6EC5E3581CE@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Source-IP: aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69] Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk > Please answer the following question "Is N2033 ready for forwarding to > SC22 as the DTS?" in one of these ways. > > 1) Yes. > 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes. > 3) No, for the following reasons. > 4) Abstain. My vote is "3) No, for the following reasons." I voted "yes" or "abstain" on recent ballots regarding the draft TS because the features specified in the drafts ranged from good to tolerable and because I thought it would be good to have the TS completed so that implementors could gain experience with the features before they became part of an edition of the Fortran standard. The addition of stalled images in their present form is sufficiently objectionable that I am compelled to vote "No." My primary objection is to the requirements given in the third paragraph of Clause 5.9 [14:19-23]. I do not see how the specified semantics can be implemented without compromising the performance of codes that do not make use of the feature. I am not certain that the semantics can be implemented at all in some common environments. At a secondary level, I find the specification of stalled images to be unclear. Some points follow. Clause 3.7 [5:41] What does it mean for an image to have "encountered" an ? I know we use the usual meaning of a word when we do not specify its meaning, but that rule is inadequate for this case. For example, if an image executes a statement that contains an , but that is part of an operand that is not evaluated, has the been "encountered?" My guess is that it has not, but I cannot tell that from the draft TS. Clause 5.9, paragraph 3 [14:20-23] When does a stalled image transfer control to the END TEAM statement? Can it happen immediately or must it wait until all other images that are part of the same team have completed, failed, or stalled? Clause 5.9, paragraph 3 [14:20-23] Are the deallocations and finalizations subject to any requirements w.r.t. the order in which they are performed? For example, during normal execution, allocatable objects that are part of an instance of an internal procedure will be deallocated before the allocatable objects that are part of the related instance of the host procedure. Is there any requirement that that ordering be respected by the stalled image? Robert Corbett representing Oracle America