(j3.2006) TKR for C Interop

Dan Nagle dannagle
Tue Feb 27 18:46:17 EST 2007


Bill Long wrote:


>  I am increasingly convinced that 
> the best approach proposed so far is a new attribute:
>     IGNORE([<ignore-mode-list>])
>     <ignore-mode> is TYPE or
>                                  KIND or
>                                  RANK

How does this work, unless the universe of actual arguments
for any particular dummy argument are all the same storage size?


> 1) Is the problem posed by Aleks and Craig serious enough to warrant a 
> change?   (I assume Aleks and Craig already voted yes.)

Not at this time.

> 2) Does the IGNORE attribute solve the problem?

Perhaps, but does it require either a new calling sequence
(must pass storage size)?
or application compilation (to see the ultimate storage (or whatever
it's called after 179) size of the actual arguments)?

> If yes to 1 and 2 then:
> 3) Should this feature be added into the f08 draft, or into the TR?

No, too late for new f08 features, and no, not without changing
substantially the specifications of the TR.

> 4) If it should be added into the TR, should it be done in a draft 
> before the WG5 meeting (effectively expanding the scope of the TR 
> compared to what was voted so far)?

As the TR required the permission of SC22, I believe
that WG5 must initiate any substantial changes to it.

The TR is about calling C with Fortran funny stuff.
This is a walk through major changes to Fortran's interface scheme.
Not at all the same stuff.


Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.

More information about the J3 mailing list