From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Oct 22 07:05:20 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 D62D4358A2F; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:05:20 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from nag-j.co.jp (bvdeuz19.secure.ne.jp [180.222.80.19]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AB42D3588A5 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:05:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 17566 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2020 14:05:15 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Oct 2020 14:05:15 +0900 From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: Subject: WG5 letter ballot (due 24 Oct) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:05:15 +0900 Message-ID: <023f01d6a830$ee061180$ca123480$@nag-j.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0240_01D6A87C.5DEDB980" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AdaoMJZ67MYYbmerS9WQc3k6g5xyQw== Content-Language: ja Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0240_01D6A87C.5DEDB980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 --- -N- 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 NO vote for F18/015: Individually these don't really warrant a "no", but together I think they do. (1) The formula given in the comment differs from the code for the number of "spare" images. (a) The comment should be changed to ! Choose how many images to keep as spares. (b) The code should be changed, either to something very simple like images_spare = (NUM_IMAGES()+90)/100 or to the several lines suggested by Anton. My preference would be for something really simple, but anything reasonable that resolves the comment/=code dichotomy is fine. (2) The variable "team_number" should be changed to "team_num", or anything else that is understandable but not the name of a standard intrinsic. (3) The error handling is half-hearted. It should be improved by (a) following "IF (status == STAT_FAILED_IMAGE) EXIT simulation" (after CHANGE TEAM) with IF (status/=0) EXIT outer (b) following "END TEAM (STAT=status) simulation" with IF (status/=0 .AND. status/=STAT_FAILED_IMAGE) EXIT outer (c) following "SYNC ALL (STAT=status)" (two lines down from (b)) with IF (status/=0 .AND. status/=STAT_FAILED_IMAGE) EXIT outer Cheers, -- ..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo. ------=_NextPart_000_0240_01D6A87C.5DEDB980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

--- -N- 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

NO vote for = F18/015:

Individually these don’t really warrant a = “no”, but together I think they do.

(1) The = formula given in the comment differs from the code for the number of = “spare” images.

(a) The = comment should be changed to

! Choose how many images to keep = as spares.

(b) The code should = be changed, either to something very simple like

images_spare =3D = (NUM_IMAGES()+90)/100

or to the = several lines suggested by Anton.

My = preference would be for something really simple, but anything reasonable = that resolves the comment/=3Dcode dichotomy is fine.

(2) The = variable “team_number” should be changed to = “team_num”, or anything else that is understandable but not = the name of a standard intrinsic.

(3) The = error handling is half-hearted. It should be improved = by

(a) following “IF (status = =3D=3D STAT_FAILED_IMAGE) EXIT simulation” (after CHANGE TEAM) = with

IF (status/=3D0) EXIT = outer

(b) following “END TEAM (STAT=3Dstatus) = simulation” with

IF (status/=3D0 .AND. = status/=3DSTAT_FAILED_IMAGE) EXIT outer

(c) = following “SYNC ALL (STAT=3Dstatus)” (two lines down from = (b)) with

IF (status/=3D0 .AND. = status/=3DSTAT_FAILED_IMAGE) EXIT outer

Cheers,

--

..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG = Oxford/Tokyo.

------=_NextPart_000_0240_01D6A87C.5DEDB980--