(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3476) Draft WG5 Minutes
Jim Xia
jimxia
Wed Aug 15 10:15:32 EDT 2007
Hi Steve and John,
Thanks for preparing the draft of meeting minutes. There is an error in
list of attendees -- I represents IBM and Canada in this meeting. Can you
please correct this?
Thank you.
Jim Xia
XL Fortran Compiler Testing
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave.
Phone (905) 413-3444 Tie-line 969-3444
D2/NAH/8200 /MKM
John Reid <j.k.reid at rl.ac.uk>
Sent by: j3-bounces at j3-fortran.org
08/15/2007 08:59 AM
Please respond to
j.k.reid at rl.ac.uk; Please respond to
fortran standards email list for J3 <j3 at j3-fortran.org>
To
WG5 <sc22wg5 at open-std.org>
cc
Subject
(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3476) Draft WG5 Minutes
WG5,
Here are draft minutes of our meeting, prepared by Steve and modified
(very
slightly) by me. I will wait a week before putting the final version on
the web
site to give you all a chance to correct errors or suggest improvements.
Cheers,
John.
ISO/IEC JTC/SC22/WG5-N1691-3
Minutes of Meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5
Hosted by the British Standards Institution
August 6-10, 2007
List of Attendees:
WG5:
John Reid (Convenor)
Dan Nagle (J3 chair)
Ian Chivers (UK Fortran Group, UK)
Malcolm Cohen (NAG, Oxford, UK)
Aleksander Donev (J3, LLNL, USA)
Dick Hendrickson (J3, USA)
Michael Ingrassia (J3, Sun Microsystems, USA)
Bill Long (J3, Cray, USA)
Jeanne Martin (J3, USA)
Steve Morgan (University of Liverpool, UK) Secretary
Toon Moene (J3, Gnu Fortran, Netherlands)
David Muxworthy (BSI, UK)
Shivarama Raok (Hewlett Packard, India)
Lawrie Schonfelder (UK Fortran IST, UK)
Jane Sleightholme (UK Fortran Group, UK)
Van Snyder (J3, Caltech/JPL, USA)
Masayuki Takata (Edogawa University, Japan)
Jim Xia (J3/IBM, USA)
Guests:
Greg Collier, Culham Laboratories (Monday only)
Apologies for absence were received from:
Craig Rasmussen (J3, USA)
Matthijs van Waveren (Netherlands)
1. Opening of the Meeting
The meeting opened at 0900.
2. Opening Business
2.1 Introductory Remarks from the Convenor
John Reid welcomed everyone to the meeting. He congratulated J3 on
the magnificent job they had done in producing the draft standard. He
observed that the UK had expressed serious reservations about the
current schedule and the contents of the document and felt that it
would be useful to explore these issues during the day.
2.2 Welcome from the host
Jane Sleighthome and Ian Chivers welcomed everyone to London and BCS
Headquarters.
2.3 Local arrangements.
A reception sponsored by the BCS (arranged by Peter Crouch) and a trip
on the river for Wednesday afternoon had been organized.
2.4 Appointments for this meeting
David Muxworthy would act as chairman of the drafting committee. Steve
Morgan would act as secretary.
2.5 Adoption of the agenda (N1672)
The agenda was adopted.
2.6 Approval of the minutes of the Fairfax meeting (N1654)
The minutes were approved with no objections. Malcolm Cohen said that
he would prefer meetings to start on Sunday and end on Friday morning.
3. Matters arising from the minutes
There were no matters arising not covered by subsequent agenda items.
4. Status of the Fairfax Resolutions (N1654)
The second corrigendum had been completed.
5. Reports
5.1 SC22 Matters
John Reid reported that he had raised the problems WG5 experienced
with processing documents, that the chairman of SC22 had visited Geneva
to discuss these with Keith Brannon. Keith has agreed to our suggested
procedure and will attend the September meeting of SC22 to pursue the
matter further.
5.2 National Activity Reports (Heads of delegations)
N1682 UK National Activity Report (Muxworthy)
N1684 US National Activity Report (Snyder)
N685 Japan National Activity Report (Takata)
Jim Xia noted that Canada agreed with a proposed 2 year slip in
publishing the standard and preferred that co-arrays be included.
5.3 Report from Primary development body (NCITS/J3 Chair)
Dan Nagle noted that the draft standard (N1678) had been produced.
5.4 Reports from Other Development Bodies
There were none.
5.5 Liaison Reports
NCITS/H2(SQL) - not much to report
NCITS/J11(C) - Craig Rasmussen was not present to report.
Dan Nagle noted that the C committee encouraged compatibility of
Fortran with the C special functions standard that was being
developed. John Reid thought this was a low priority issue for this
meeting. Bill Long noted that there was an attempt to produce a
simplified function interface which would reduce the number of
interrogation functions from 40/50 to 6.
IEEE 754 revision - no comment
IFIP/WG5 - nothing to report.
OpenMP - no report (Matthijs van Waveren not present)
OWG-V - Dan Nagle noted that he was acting as liaison to OWG-V
(Working Group on Vulnerabilities). This initiative comes from
requirements by US government (with some support from the UK) that
software standards should deal with security in relation to such
issues as cyber terrorism etc. (a web site reference is in N1686).
Other language standards groups such as C, C# and Ada attend.
6. Review the current working draft (N1678) for the revision of
Fortran 2003
John Reid asked David Muxworthy to present the UK's proposals (N1682)
for delaying the standard and for reducing its size (removing
Co-arrays, Macros, Bits).
There followed a wide-ranging discussion on the issues. Compiler
vendors were asked for their initial opinions and then non-vendors
were invited to comment.
Straw vote taken:
Do we want to change the status from that specified in the Fairfax
resolutions?
Yes 10
No 2
Undecided 5
Straw vote taken:
Keep everything 2
Reduce the size of the revision 7
Delay the revision 1
Reduce and delay 7
Undecided 1
There followed a discussion on what form a TR on co-arrays would take.
Monday p.m.
There was a long discussion on the schedule and features.
Return to co-arrays.
Straw vote taken:
Keep Co-arrays in next revision 13
Opposed 1
Undecided 3
Straw vote taken:
There should be no significant delay in the standard 5
There should be some delay 5
Undecided 8
There followed a discussion on the Bits proposal.
It was pointed out that the bits proposals had several components e.g.
the introduction of the new type (which some members objected to on
principle) and the addition of features and intrinsics (which had been
specifically requested by users). It may be useful to keep some of
these features.
Straw vote taken:
Keep everything as is (in draft) 0
Keep type but restrict length 3
Keep intrinsic/other features but remove bits type 10
Remove all the new bits features 0
Undecided 3
There followed a discussion on the length of delay for publishing the
next standard favoured by members.
Straw vote taken:
For a one year delay 6
Against a one year delay 5
Undecided 6
There followed a discussion on the Macros feature.
Straw vote:
Keep in standard 1
Move to TR 5
Leave out completely 5
Undecided 6
Straw vote:
Remove from next standard
Yes 10
No 1
Undecided 6
There followed a discussion on the new block features.
Straw Vote:
Keep blocks in the standard
Yes 13
No 2
Undecided 3
Tuesday 10:45
Bill Long presented the issues concerning which of the bit features to
keep in the standard.
He identified several features for removal illustrated by the
following :-
1. Assignment or initialization X = Z"ffffff"
2. I1 = I2.XOR.I3
I1 = I2.AND.Z"FF"
3. WRITE(*,'(Z18.16)')R
4. I1 <operator> I2
or
BLT(I1,I2)
5. IAND(I2,Z"FF")
Straw votes were taken on whether each feature should be retained :-
Vote on feature 1:
Yes 8
No 9
Undecided 1
Vote on feature 2:
Yes 6
No 6
Undecided 5
Vote on feature 3:
Yes 11
No 2
Undecided 5
Vote on feature 4:
Yes 16
No 0
Undecided 2
Vote on feature 5:
Yes 8
No 2
Undecided 8
John Reid noted at this point that there was consensus that there
should be some delay in the standard but that there was no consensus
on the length of the delay.
A straw vote was proposed:
Should we have a 2 year delay with a TR for co-arrays?
Yes 3
No 12
Undecided 4
Straw vote (4-way):
Those for a delay of 6 months 8
Those for a delay of 12 months 8
Those for a delay of 24 months (no Co-Arr TR) 1
Undecided 1
Some discussion indicated that there was no great difference between
the 6-month and 12-month options in practice.
The meeting then returned to considering the Macros issue.
The discussion indicated that a type 2 TR would be suitable.
Straw Vote:
Do we want to make Macros a TR (type 2)
Yes 8
No 3
Undecided 6
At this point it was agreed that Alexander Donev would act as editor
for the TR [but see later for outcome].
Wednesday 0900
John Reid presented a draft revised schedule (N1693-1) showing
possible revised dates. The effect of all the changes would be a
10-month delay with final publication in June 2010.
There was then a discussion on the UK's comments on co-arrays.
There was some discussion about Note 2.10 in the draft standard. This
note indicates that co-arrays are simpler to implement for homogeneous
systems (although it does not preclude their applicability to
heterogeneous systems). It was felt that the form of words could be
improved.
Straw vote:
Make a change to Note 2.10
Yes 15
No 0
Undecided 3
There was then a discussion on reducing the co-array features.
Straw vote:
Remove co-arrays as structure components?
Yes 0
No 8
Undecided 9
Remove the collective intrinsics?
Yes 0
No 9
Undecided 8
Remove one or more collectives (decided by subgroup)?
Yes 12
No 3
Undecided 3
Issue deferred to subgroup.
Remove type(image_team) & TEAM=?
Yes 6
No 6
Undecided 6
Convenor asked the subgroup to consider this further (see Thursday).
Remove some of the many synchronization primitives? (choice by
subgroup)
Yes 8
No 4
Undecided 6
Issue deferred to subgroup.
Malcolm Cohen (Document Editor) raised the issue of paragraph and line
numbers in the draft document. Line numbers cannot be included in the
final standard but paragraph numbers can be.
Straw Vote:
Should paragraph numbers be left in the final published standard?
Yes 15
No 2
Undecided 1
Thursday p.m.
John Reid presented his latest draft of the schedule for publishing
the standard (N1693-2)
John asked if there were any comments - there were none. John asked if
anyone opposed this schedule - there was no opposition.
The schedule was therefore agreed and would become N1693.
There was a brief discussion on the name of the standard - should it
be F2008/9/10?
Straw vote:
Retain 2008 as name
Yes 12
No 4
Undecided 0
There was a discussion on the radix feature.
Straw vote:
Keep the radix argument as it is?
Yes 8
No 3
Undecided 6
Simplification of Co-arrays
Bill Long presented the pros and cons of removing the team features of
Co-arrays.
Arguments for keeping the feature were:-
1. Removing the feature would cause complicated edits
2. There was a performance benefit
3. Program safety
4. Migration to future design
5. Image list may be huge
Arguments for removing the feature :-
1. Make for a simpler standard
2. Easier to implement
3. Future design may be better
4. Fewer SYNC statements.
5. Not used often
Straw Vote:
Remove type(image_team), sync_team, form_team?
Yes 0
No 8
Undecided 9
Straw Vote:
Keep SYNC_IMAGES and NOTIFY/QUERY?
Yes 6
No 2
Undecided 8
Straw Vote:
Keep both 6
Delete SYNC_IMAGE only 1
Delete NOTIFY/QUERY 1
Delete both 1
Undecided 8
Straw Vote:
Delete co_findloc?
Yes 8
No 4
Undecided 4
Go further and delete all co_max/co_min collectives
Yes 3
No 5
Undecided 9
Go even further and delete all co_maxval/co_minval
collectives?
Yes 2
No 5
Undecided 10
Delete all but co_sum and co_product
Yes 1
No 6
Undecided 11
Delete co_findloc?
Yes 6
No 4
Undecided 6
The convenor declared that co-findloc should be removed.
Friday 10th Aug 0900:
There was a discussion on the fact that, although ENTRY had been voted
as obsolescent at the Fairfax meeting, this had not been changed in
the draft standard (i.e. the text had not been changed to small font).
This was recognized to have been a human error in handling the paper
trail. The convenor suggested that the action (to make ENTRY
obsolescent) should be confirmed by the meeting.
Straw Vote:
Ask J3 to make ENTRY obsolescent in the draft standard?
Yes 12
No 1
Undecided 0
Straw Vote:
Co-arrays should be in the main standard? 10
Co-arrays should be a separate part or TR 5
Undecided 2
There was a discussion on the special mathematical functions being
developed as a C/C++ standard (N1687, N1688)
Straw Vote:
Should WG5 consider some form of standardisation of ISO 31-11 (special
functions)?
Yes 4
No 5
Undecided 6
The Convenor agreed to explore working with the WGs for C/C++
regarding new standards (TRs) for special math functions whilst
recognizing that the WG5 response was mixed.
7. Consider the Fortran defect reports (interpretations) in J3-006
See resolutions.
8. WG5 Business & Strategic Plans
Bill Long is working on further interoperability TR. His formal
approval as project editor should be sought.
Report to SC22 is in N1692.
There should be a request for further corrigenda.
The invitation from Japan to host the November 2008 meeting will be
made formal in September.
The next WG5 meeting will be Feb 11-15 2008 in Las Vegas.
9. Closing Business
The resolutions (N1690) were discussed and a few minor changes were
suggested.
9.1 Future meetings
Arrangements for the meeting in Tokyo - Nov 16-21, Tokyo, Japan.
9.2 Any other business
There was some discussion of N1694 (response to N1674)
Straw Vote:
Accept N1694 as modified?
Yes 15
No 0
Undecided 0
N1695 (revision of bits feature) was discussed and some minor
suggestions were made.
Straw Vote:
Accept N1695 as amended?
Yes 13
No 0
Undecided 2
The convenor noted that he would appreciate comments on N1692 (WG5
Business Plan and Convener's Report)
10. Adoption of Resolutions (N1690)
L5 (in the draft document) was the only controversial one. The
resolution stated:
L5. Content of the revised Fortran standard
That WG5 makes the following changes to the content of the revision:
- type BITS is removed and ancillary bit manipulation facilities are
revised as shown in WG5-N1695
- co-arrays are simplified by removal of CO_FINDLOC
- intelligent macros are removed.
The convenor ruled that this resolution should be voted on separately.
Individual Vote:
Accept L5?
Yes 10
No 4
Undecided 1
Country Vote:
Accept L5?
Yes 2 (US, Netherlands)
No 0
Undecided 3 (Japan, Canada, UK)
Individual vote on the other resolutions:
Resolutions L1-L4 & L6-L9 were passed with unanimous consent (16-0)
Country vote on the other resolutions:
Resolutions L1-L4 & L6-L9 were passed with unanimous consent (5-0).
11. Adjournment
John Reid thanked the local hosts again for their excellent support
during the week.
The meeting adjourned at c. 1300.
_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3 at j3-fortran.org
http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20070815/e96e0b0c/attachment-0001.html
More information about the J3
mailing list