(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4147) Urgent: letter ballot on interps

Toon Moene toon
Fri Feb 12 14:45:36 EST 2010

John Reid wrote:

> WG5,
> There are now 28 interpretations ready for WG5 letter vote. This time, I 
> am making it a 14-day ballot in order that it is complete before the 
> meeting in Las Vegas starts. I hope this is acceptable to everyone.

My reply:

Yes  No Number     Title
-Y- --- F95/0098 Are dummy functions returning assumed-length character 
-Y- --- F03/0022 Coexistence of IEEE and non-IEEE kinds
-Y- --- F03/0024 DEALLOCATE and array pointers
-Y- --- F03/0034 IEEE_LOGB()
-Y- --- F03/0039 HYPOT()
-Y- --- F03/0063 Procedure pointers in BLOCK DATA program units
-Y- --- F03/0071 Subroutine/function ambiguity in generics
-C- --- F03/0078 IEEE_SUPPORT_DATATYPE vs. mathematical equivalence
-Y- --- F03/0090 Polymorphic array constructors
-Y- --- F03/0112 Attributes allowed for dummy arguments in defined 
-C- --- F03/0119 Elemental procedures and deferred length character 
-Y- --- F03/0122 When do objects of sequence derived type have the same 
-Y- --- F03/0125 Definitions of EXTENDS_TYPE_OF and SAME_TYPE_AS
-Y- --- F03/0126 References to VOLATILE variables in pure procedures
-Y- --- F03/0127 Duration of procedure execution
-Y- --- F03/0129 C_LOC of character substrings
-Y- --- F03/0130 Elemental specific intrinsic procedure characteristics
-Y- --- F03/0131 SAVE attribute and EQUIVALENCE
-Y- --- F03/0132 Unformatted i/o and private components
-Y- --- F03/0133 Is unlimited polymorphic allowed in COMMON?
-Y- --- F03/0134 Implicit typing of procedure pointers
-Y- --- F03/0135 Interaction between RESULT, recursion, and host generic
-Y- --- F03/0136 Are subroutines distinguishable from arrays?
-Y- --- F03/0137 Dummy procedure type compatibility
-Y- --- F03/0138 External <procedure-name> as <proc-target>
-Y- --- F03/0139 Functions returning procedure pointers
-Y- --- F03/0140 Type of nested construct entities
-Y- --- F03/0141 More than one specific interface for a procedure


F03/0078: This answer might come back to haunt us.  People who want to
           follow IEEE 754 strictly *need* the assurance that the
           text of the program is followed verbatim, because, although
           X(I) / A is mathematically equivalent to X(I) * (1/A), it
           certainly isn't in IEEE 754 arithmetic (compilers do this to
           turn division by a loop-invariant into a cheaper

F03/0119: Do we want to lift the restriction prohibiting example 2 in
           the future ?

Kind regards,

Toon Moene - e-mail: toon at moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html

More information about the J3 mailing list