From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sun Oct 4 17:52:56 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom9 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom9@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 258E1358993; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 17:52:56 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail-pg1-f178.google.com (mail-pg1-f178.google.com [209.85.215.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A857E358986 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 17:52:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pg1-f178.google.com with SMTP id 22so182031pgv.6 for ; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 08:52:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stevelionel.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=jSSKbjlGEJHsJ0uv3Rdch31oEprPYKOxzn/4OnSXxJ8=; b=qScwn2bkpwvcH/YVHhAri7UI4IPIHgavlLGmXNvKe03k/gxQwwPtbGIyOD1om1ZUD1 MchTkt+ytbwef+7ZRJeqaVu/tpddczboM4WAJwTRODgxjKxaq+JmgNILwO+sSyQoGBQD 73U1jxdKKZBOrJtZ8tDCq9LGt1AQAwvKFknRU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=jSSKbjlGEJHsJ0uv3Rdch31oEprPYKOxzn/4OnSXxJ8=; b=ihxrc/oeEePp84ElDGHrMSLTyJQTbVEe/EmwKVZD3IcRGYkjy9i+bpHzJm6zvpLAIA 0UIPI6utsGd/fp9J0lC//t+thf02n5wtme/tS6uj9Fm+fEqtb3fjvfEdw+Ae/SW7h2on Mh6BxM/3tRREfDE+o1c1YE/xPtbBtIrLcdr97rKO2Uy6Q6DMBJZ2KylVP+39BfqHxV7N ckJE31E9XIRv/3kOWn3aKEC801zUPRFIXwWHVTCnjJZZK1vD/DEa0GddFSnxgrPgdV2n +o5IOdTqIO2rHqcHi6W2PCd4IWQJZc2YXp1z2G1+YbVbbpYloI4s0WjFqNZZkt1cbd3J Hfsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530N9KMEBNe9cZX2oyO81y6BIQYzyzZpcox+JdRcryj1Q7+tbBcj 6YRiZlwprfraO44Bwfuv0f3GJyhpesweaPr1ho38rUv6PXXWXkhm X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz64bLb3MBRgA2+Ay6gWHG/JGmPZ+0lj2I9Ih4fI4kevgmIaWewlfOALHQhmH0XUbbyQlnpMkTXW/x0KBwHBlg= X-Received: by 2002:a63:5119:: with SMTP id f25mr10382094pgb.351.1601826773337; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 08:52:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Steve Lionel Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2020 11:52:41 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: WG5 letter ballot 1 on Fortran 2018 interpretations To: WG5 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d11db205b0da5b35" Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk --000000000000d11db205b0da5b35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" The following Fortran 2018 interpretations are being balloted: Yes No Number Title Y --- F18/001 ACOSH principal value specification is wrong Y --- F18/002 Internal procedures in generic interface blocks Y --- F18/003 Pointer association of component of non-definable selector Y --- F18/004 Program execution sequence with failed images Y --- F18/005 Does INPUT_UNIT really identify the same unit as *? Y --- F18/006 Connection of INPUT_UNIT on different images Y --- F18/008 Contradictory assumed-rank requirements Y --- F18/009 Bad examples in IEEE_ARITHMETIC functions Y --- F18/010 Categories of pure procedures Y --- F18/011 Categories of elemental procedures Y --- F18/012 Internal procedure in a generic interface Y --- F18/013 TEAM_NUMBER arguments and intrinsic function are ambiguous Y --- F18/014 Type of OPERATION arguments to the REDUCE intrinsic C --- F18/015 Example in C.6.8 is wrong Y --- F18/016 Host association changes in Fortran 2018 Y --- F18/017 Final subroutine invocation order Y --- F18/018 Public namelist and private variable Comments on F18/015 While I generally agree with Anton's remarks on 015, I find the suggested replacement for the calculation of images_spare with three statements to be unwieldy. He is correct that if NUM_IMAGES() is 10 then there are zero spare images, not one as the comment suggests, but this is easily fixed. (I also agree that the ,0 is unnecessary). My suggested replacement is: images_spare = MAX(NUM_IMAGES()/100,MIN(NUM_IMAGES()-9,1)) I tested this in the range 1:201 and it delivered the desired result. Steve Lionel --000000000000d11db205b0da5b35 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The following Fortr= an 2018 interpretations are being balloted:

Yes=C2= =A0 No Number=C2=A0 =C2=A0Title
=C2=A0Y --- F18/001=C2=A0 ACOSH p= rincipal value specification is wrong
=C2=A0Y --- F18/002=C2=A0 I= nternal procedures in generic interface blocks
=C2=A0Y --- F18/00= 3=C2=A0 Pointer association of component of non-definable selector
=C2=A0Y=C2=A0 --- F18/004=C2=A0 Program execution sequence with failed im= ages
=C2=A0Y=C2=A0 --- F18/005=C2=A0 Does INPUT_UNIT really ident= ify the same unit as *?
=C2=A0Y=C2=A0 --- F18/006=C2=A0 Connectio= n of INPUT_UNIT on different images
=C2=A0Y=C2=A0 --- F18/008=C2= =A0 Contradictory assumed-rank requirements
=C2=A0Y=C2=A0 --- F18= /009=C2=A0 Bad examples in IEEE_ARITHMETIC functions
=C2=A0Y=C2= =A0 --- F18/010=C2=A0 Categories of pure procedures
=C2=A0Y=C2=A0= --- F18/011=C2=A0 Categories of elemental procedures
=C2=A0Y=C2= =A0 --- F18/012=C2=A0 Internal procedure in a generic interface
= =C2=A0Y=C2=A0 --- F18/013=C2=A0 TEAM_NUMBER arguments and intrinsic functio= n are ambiguous
=C2=A0Y=C2=A0 --- F18/014=C2=A0 Type of OPERATION= arguments to the REDUCE intrinsic
=C2=A0C=C2=A0 --- F18/015=C2= =A0 Example in C.6.8 is wrong
=C2=A0Y=C2=A0 --- F18/016=C2=A0 Hos= t association changes in Fortran 2018
=C2=A0Y=C2=A0 --- F18/017= =C2=A0 Final subroutine invocation order
=C2=A0Y=C2=A0 --- F18/01= 8=C2=A0 Public namelist and private variable

Comme= nts on F18/015

While I generally agree with Anton&= #39;s remarks on 015, I find the suggested replacement for the calculation = of images_spare with three statements to be unwieldy. He is correct that if= NUM_IMAGES() is 10 then there are zero spare images, not one as the commen= t suggests, but this is easily fixed. (I also agree that the ,0 is unnecess= ary). My suggested replacement is:

=C2=A0images_sp= are =3D MAX(NUM_IMAGES()/100,MIN(NUM_IMAGES()-9,1))

I tested this in the range 1:201 and it delivered the desired result.=

Steve Lionel
--000000000000d11db205b0da5b35--