(j3.2006) does move_alloc violate restrictions in 184.108.40.206?
Wed Oct 28 13:57:13 EDT 2009
Jim Xia wrote:
> > I am sure some problem happens in the internals of the IBM compiler but
> > this does not appear to be a problem of the standard. The intrinsics
> > follow special rules.
> Are intrinsics exempt from the general rules of the standard? The
> question I raised here is not about one particular implementation, it is
> about if the standard is consistent in what rules should follow. I
> think there hasn't been any convincing argument that my view is false.
> That is, an allocatable variable has to be associated with both FROM
> and TO at some point during the execution of the MOVE_ALLOC. Is this
> allowed by rules in 220.127.116.11?
The rules in 18.104.22.168 (and elsewhere in the standard) are for
procedures written in Fortran. Most of the intrinsics, and especially
ones like MOVE_ALLOC, are most likely not written in Fortran.
MOVE_ALLOC is probably either inline code, or a C library routine, that
plays games with the internals of the respective dope vectors for the
arguments. It was created because you can't do these sorts of things in
Fortran. I assume this was the origin of Aleks' 'special rules' comment.
The specific rule in 22.214.171.124, number (2), only talks about references
to the associated actual argument through the dummy argument or its
values being affected. Even if there were dummy arguments in the
Fortran sense, these restrictions would not seem to apply to MOVE_ALLOC.
The allocatable arguments themselves are not referenced or defined -
the operations are on the dope vectors.
> Jim Xia
> XL Fortran Compiler Test
> IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave, Markham, On, L6G 1C7
> Phone (905) 413-3444 Tie-line 313-3444
> email: jimxia at ca.ibm.com
> D2/YF7/8200 /MKM
Bill Long longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142
Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120
More information about the J3