(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4375) [ukfortran] WG5 informal ballot re Interop. TR
Mon Dec 6 13:33:24 EST 2010
Ah, OK. You are proposing added restrictions on how TYPE(*) could be
used in a Fortran-Fortran call. I have fewer problems with that idea,
but would still want the MPI folks to agree that this restriction is not
a problem for them.
On 12/6/10 11:19 AM, Aleksandar Donev wrote:
> On 12/06/10 11:20, Bill Long wrote:
>> However, one of the original desires of the MPI users was to have
>> map to a void * dummy parameter and have only the address passed. I
>> think this would be an often used form.
> And I did not propose changing that. On the C side it is still void*.
> The issue is what happens when a Fortran routine has such a dummy.
> Let me write my proposed solution, this time without typos (I hope) but
> I won't try to get the language perfect:
> An assumed-type dummy argument that is of assumed-shape or assumed-rank
> shall not correspond to an explicit-shape or assumed-size actual
> argument that is itself an assumed-type dummy argument.
> [I think allocatables and pointers are OK. Also note that a CLASS(*)
> actual is allowed.]
> Note for Rationale: This ensures that a caller can always pass type
> information for an assumed-shape or assumed-rank to the callee, even
> though there is no means to inquire it within Fortran.
Bill Long longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142
Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101
More information about the J3