From jwagener@amoco.com Sat Feb 20 07:20:23 1993 Received: from interlock.amoco.com by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA19739 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:20:23 +0100 Received: by interlock.amoco.com id AA07780 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 13:13:04 -0600 Received: by interlock.amoco.com (Internal Mail Agent-2); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 13:13:04 -0600 Received: by interlock.amoco.com (Internal Mail Agent-1); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 13:13:04 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 13:20:23 CST Message-Id: <9302201920.AB16824@trc.amoco.com> From: Jerrold L. Wagener To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: X3J3/93-006r, subset for Mar 1-30 X3J3 ballot X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 argument that is associated with a dummy argument of the procedure that has the TARGET attribute." 2. Section 12.4.1.1, add at the end of the fourth paragraph, " If the dummy argument has the TARGET attribute, the actual argument must have the TARGET attribute and the type, type parameters, and ranks must agree." 3. Section 12.4.1.1, fifth paragraph, last sentence [173: 10-14] delete, "with a dummy argument of the procedure that has the TARGET attribute or" 4. Section 12.4.1.1, delete the sixth paragraph [173: 14-17] and replace with, "When execution of a procedure completes, a pointer which is associated with a dummy argument of the procedure that has the TARGET attribute remains associated with the actual argument." 5. Section C.12.8, delete the second paragraph through the end of the section [292: 5-37] and replace with A pointer that is associated with a dummy argument that has the TARGET attribute when execution of a procedure completes remains associated with the corresponding actual argument. REAL, POINTER :: PBEST REAL, TARGET :: B (10000) CALL BEST (PBEST, B) ... CONTAINS SUBROUTINE BEST (P, A) REAL, POINTER :: P REAL, TARGET :: A (:) ... !Find the "best" element A(I) P => A (I) RETURN END SUBROUTINE END It is illegal to associate a dummy argument that has the TARGET attribute with an actual argument that does not have the TARGET attribute. An explicit interface is required when calling a procedure which has a dummy argument that is a target. In the following example, an expression is argument associated with a target dummy argument. The presence of the explicit interface allows a processor to detect this error. POINTER P CALL FRED (P, 4.5+X) ! Invalid call to FRED PRINT *, P ... CONTAINS SUBROUTINE FRED (PTR, TGT) POINTER PTR TARGET TGT PTR => TGT RETURN END SUBROUTINE END SUBMITTED BY: Jon Steidel - X3J3/93-125 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-12 000125 HISTORY: Submitted as X3J3/93-125 with draft response at meeting 124 and adopted by a vote of (15-1) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER: 000129 TITLE: Array constructors in initialization expressions KEYWORDS: array constructors, initialization expressions, implied-DO variables DEFECT TYPE: Interpretation STATUS: X3J3 draft response QUESTION: It was likely the intent of the standard to allow the program fragment INTEGER ARRAY(3) PARAMETER ( ARRAY = (/ (ABS(I), I=-3,-1) /) ) However, according to the text in the second list in 7.1.6.1 U(/ (ABS(I), I=- 3,-1) /)U is not an initialization expression. The array constructor U(/ ABS(-3), ABS(-2), ABS(-1) /)U qualifies as an initialization expression since item (2) in the list indicates that an array constructor is an initialization expression if each element is an initialization expression, and (4) includes "An elemental intrinsic function reference of type integer or character where each argument is an initialization expresssion of type integer or character." The problem with the UABS(I)U in PARAMETER ( ARRAY = (/ (ABS(I), I=-3,-1) /) ) is that UABS(I)U is not defined as an initialization expression. It does not qualify under (4) as UIU is not an initialization expression and it does not qualify under (2) as the primary UABS(I)U is neither an initialization expression nor an implied-do variable. Is the program fragment standard conforming. ANSWER: No, the fragment is not standard conforming. In the fragment PARAMETER (ARRAY = (/ (ABS(I), I = -3, -1) /) ) and considering 7.1.6.1, second list, rule 2 ABS(I) is an element of the array constructor. It is an expression consisting of exactly one primary, a function reference. That function reference has one argument, I, which is another expression consisting of exactly one primary. That primary is not an initialization expression and thus does not meet the requirements of rule 4. Nothing could be found indicating that the intent of standard was other than that indicated above. REFERENCES: ISI/IEC 1539:1991 (E) section 7.1.6.1 EDITS: None. SUBMITTED BY: Janice C. Shepherd HISTORY: meeting 124: submitted as paper 93-027 draft response 93-088 approved -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER: 000130 TITLE: Multiple statements on line with END statement KEYWORDS: END statement DEFECT TYPE: Erratum STATUS: X3J3 draft response QUESTION: Can the end statement of a program unit be followed on the same line with statements for another program unit? By use of a ';' one can have multiple statements appear on a single line as in: A = 1; B = A; The standard does not seem to indicate one way or another whether an END statement can be followed by another statement on the same line. Presumably the statement would belong to the next compilation unit if such use was allowed, e.g.: END; SUBROUTINE S It is hoped that the intent of the standard is that any statement appearing on the same line as a program unit END statement must appear before the END statement. Note that END; SUBROUTINE S looks very much like END SUBROUTINE S; with a slight typo. ANSWER: No, a program unit END statement cannot be followed on the same line with statements for another program unit. The text in 3.3 "Source Form" is incomplete and an edit is provided for its repair. REFERENCES: ISO/IEC 1539:1991 (E) sections 3.3.1.2 and 3.3.2.2 EDIT: Replace the first sentence of 3.3 with: A Fortran program unit is a sequence of one or more lines, organized as Fortran statements, comments, and INCLUDE lines. SUBMITTED BY: Janice C. Shepherd HISTORY: meeting 124: submitted as paper 93-059 approved response 93-094 ============================================================== LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: before meeting 123 000011 3 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-12 000027 4 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-11 000030 5 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-12 000039 5 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-12 000041 6 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1992-11-11, new 000070 8 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1992-11-12, added edits to previously proposed interpretation 000071 8 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 93-02-11 000073 9 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 92-11-11, first draft response 000075 9 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-10 000079 10 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 93 02 11, initial response 000082 10 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1992-11-10, new 000086 12 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-10 000087 12 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-10 000089 12 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-10 000091 13 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-10 000092 14 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-10 000093 14 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 92-11-11 000097 15 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-10 000100 15 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 93 Feb. 000105 16 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-10, expanded discussion 000106 17 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-10 000108 18 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: Nov. 1992, original draft response000112 18 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-11 000113 19 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1992-11-12, new 000117 19 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 93 Feb, new 000123 19 LAST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE: 1993-02-12 000125 20