(j3.2006) 11-229 J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #24 - due 19-Aug-2011

[Jim Xia]

Vote from me:




The following Fortran interpretations are being balloted:
 
Yes  No   Number     Title
 
-Y-  ---  F03/0017   Dummy procedure pointers and PRESENT
-C-  ---  F03/0018   Multiple identical specific procedures in
                      type-bound generic
-Y-  ---  F03/0019   Multiple identical specific procedures in
                      generic interface blocks
-Y-  ---  F03/0021   What kind of token is a stop code?
-Y-  ---  F03/0046   Unlimited polymorphic pointers in common blocks
-C-  ---  F03/0053   The BIND attribute for C_PTR and C_FUNPTR
-Y-  ---  F03/0065   Relational equivalence
-Y-  ---  F03/0084   IEEE_SET_ROUNDING_MODE in a subroutine
-Y-  ---  F03/0103   Restrictions on dummy arguments not present for
                      polymorphic type or parameterized derived type
-Y-  ---  F03/0116   indistinguishable specifics for a generic
                      interface with use association
-C-  ---  F03/0118   Are lower bounds of assumed-shape arrays assumed?
-Y-  ---  F03/0120   When are parameterized sequence types the same type?
-Y-  ---  F08/0055   G editing for reals
-Y-  ---  F08/0056   Non-polymorphic ALLOCATE with polymorphic SOURCE=
-Y-  ---  F08/0057   Interoperability with empty types
-Y-  ---  F08/0058   ENTRY point RESULT variable
-Y-  ---  F08/0059   Auto-targetting requirements
-C-  ---  F08/0060   Procedure pointer assignment with an EXTERNAL target
-Y-  ---  F08/0061   Description of the CONTIGUOUS attribute misworded?
-Y-  ---  F08/0062   Mixing default initialization with DATA
                      initialization



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment on F03/0018

The answers to examples 1 and 2 say they're not standard conforming 
because
they have ambiguous specific bindings.  However the standard defines the
ambiguity based on procedures, not bindings.  The first sentence in 
subclause
"12.4.3.4.5 Restrictions on generic declarations" says the following:

"This subclause contains the rules that shall be satisfied by every pair 
of
specific procedures that have the same generic identifier within the scope
of the identifier."

In the given examples in the interp, there is only one procedure.  So I 
don't
believe we can declare these examples as not standard conforming based on 
the
current rules in 12.4.3.4.5.  I'm not saying the examples should be legal, 
but
simply saying we can not declare them as illegal based on the current 
rules. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment on F03/0053

1.3.147.6 "extensible type" should be updated as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment on F03/0118

There is a mis-quoted subclause: "item (4)(b)(i) in subclause 7.1.2" 
should
be "item (4)(b)(i) in subclause 7.1.12"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment on F08/0060

In the Discussion part of the interp, it would be helpful to say the 
quoted
constraint and rule, "C727 (R742)", is from 04-007.  It took me sometime 
to
understand this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------




Jim Xia

Compiler Testing
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave,
Markham, On, L6G 1C7
905-413-3444
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20110816/30023c76/attachment.html>