(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3662) [ukfortran] N1755: Request for new features from MPI Forum
Tue Nov 11 17:49:23 EST 2008
> >> Consider the restrictions on VOLATILE arguments (e.g. no VALUE and no
> >> INTENT(IN), and the proposal to require it to be set in all scopes or
> >> none). How many of those would you need to add to ASYNCHRONOUS in order
> >> to close loopholes opened by your proposal?
> >Most of those restrictions apply to *both* VOLATILE and ASYNCHRONOUS (see
> >Clause 12). If they don't, it is probably an existing bug in the standard!
> Those don't, and it's not a bug, if you think why the restrictions are
> there. They don't need to apply to ASYNCHRONOUS, but do to VOLATILE.
Ah, finally someone that actually understands why those restrictions are
there!!! I asked about a few of them several times and no one gave an answer,
and we already changed one of them a couple of meetings ago at my request
(concerning copy in/out and VOLATILE/ASYNCHRONOUS, see paper 08-165r1.txt
from meeting 184).
Anyway, I found only two cases of relevance where VOLATILE and ASYNCHRONOUS
were not both included:
1. "C557 An entity with the VALUE attribute shall not have the ... VOLATILE
Van wrote a paper that this is stupid and should be deleted. I cannot remember
if it passed. I supported it.
2. "C559 An entity with the VOLATILE attribute shall be a variable that is not
an INTENT (IN) dummy argument."
Please explain this one to me.
Are there other examples?
Aleksandar Donev, Ph.D.
Lawrence Postdoctoral Fellow @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
High Performance Computational Materials Science and Chemistry
E-mail: donev1 at llnl.gov
Phone: (925) 424-6816 Fax: (925) 423-0785
Address: P.O.Box 808, L-367, Livermore, CA 94551-9900
More information about the J3