From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Oct 28 21:59:18 2016 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 DBB8735733C; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:59:18 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 1197 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:59:18 CEST Received: from ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.140]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25B4356982 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:59:15 +0200 (CEST) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:35548) by ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1c0Czn-000TEs-kP (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path ); Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:39:19 +0100 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1c0Czn-0007MX-Bl (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:39:19 +0100 Received: from [87.115.149.238] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 28 Oct 2016 20:39:19 +0100 Date: 28 Oct 2016 20:39:19 +0100 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: John Reid Cc: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5793) Straw ballot on four small technical changes Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20161028134238.1EADD3582C8@www.open-std.org> References: <20161028134238.1EADD3582C8@www.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk I shall be very happy to change my NO votes if someone points out that I have made mistakes. Regards, Nick. Yes No Paper Subject --- -N- 06-277r1 Allow C_SIZEOF for an assumed-rank array -C- --- 06-280r2 Allow cross-image access to violate aliasing rules for coarray dummies --- -N- 06-285r2 Clarify ordering of finalisation w.r.t. deallocation in assignment(*) -Y- --- 06-289 Additional prohibitions on pure procedures(*) 06-280r2 Point 1: I had to read this several times to be quite sure of what it was saying. I suggest adding an extra question and answer: ''' Question 1C: Was it intended that the program example_1 is conforming if statement (X) is replaced by "a[2] = il"?? Answer 1C: Yes, it is intended that this example is conforming. It compiles with no errors and executes: > ftn test.f90 > srun -n2 ./a.out 1 ''' Point 2: Is the word 'typically' in NOTE 15.40+1 helpful? I am not sure what it implies, in context. 06-285r2 I think that we have two meanings of deallocate in the standard. But, whether we do or not, the last sentence of [84:32 7.5.6.3p2] is baffling; I really don't see how it makes sense for finalization to precede deallocation and yet a failure in the latter to make it processor dependent whether the former occurs! I have read that sentence as applying to pointers, yet the second sentence starts "When an allocatable entity is deallocated". Unless there is a critical reason to keep that sentence, I suggest just deleting it: [84:32 7.5.6.3p2] delete the last sentence "If an error condition occurs during deallocation, it is processor dependent whether finalization occurs." 06-277r1 C_SIZEOF is not permitted for an assumed-size array [486:24 18.2.3.7p3], but we permit assumed-size arrays to be actual arguments corresponding to assumed-rank dummies. This inconsistency needs resolving. One change would be: [486:24] 18.2.3.7p3 delete "that is not an assumed-size array". [486:31] 18.2.3.7p6 append "if the argument is an assumed-size array or is an assumed-rank object that corresponds to an assumed-size actual argument, the value returned is -1."