(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3814) [ukfortran] Ballot on the technical content of the TR

Aleksandar Donev donev1
Wed Dec 10 16:44:46 EST 2008

Hi Jim,

> This may sound like arguing for some other vendors, but Sun just said
> they don't have the rank information in their descriptors. 
A few vendors also does not have type information, which is also 
required to be carried around by BIND(C) routines in the TR. Think 
of "TYPE(*), DIMENSION(:)" and how that would be passed.

There is the option that type and rank info be removed from the 
descriptor structures in the TR. It has been discussed before. IMO, it 
seriously limits the usefulness of descriptors, since the user has to 
construct his own descriptors to pass the type and rank around (like 
the hidden length for characters). But, it will eliminate the "this or 
that vendor is disadvantaged" argument. Ultimately, it comes to the 
good old users vs. vendor argument...

I personally can go along with either, since at least there is a 
reasonable technical argument for either. But of course, I prefer if 
compilers put type/rank info into the descriptor, based on the 
actual---much safer and easier to use.

> Is there 
> any evidence this assumed-rank is needed beyond IGNORE_TKR?
I am not sure what "evidence" means in this context? You want statistics 
polling users? You want an example of where it would be useful? I 
hardly think anything I say will make a difference---people usually 
have a pre-determined mind about this, just like those oldies that 
say "don't use assumed-shape arrays" have made their mind and will 
never change it...


More information about the J3 mailing list