(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4421) WG informal ballot

[John Reid]

Jim Xia wrote:
>
>  >
>  > Please answer the following question "Is N1814 ready for forwarding
> to SC22
>  > as the PDTR?" in one of these ways.
>  >
>  > 1) Yes.
>  > 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes.
>  > 3) No, for the following reasons.
>  > 4) Abstain.
>
>
>
> No, for the following reasons
>
> 1.) allow the same C descriptor to be used in CFI_setpointer(). This is
> a bad idea to begin with, and will cause grief in compiler optimizers.

Do you mean that ptr_dv and source should not be allowed to point to the 
same C descriptor?  Adding such a restriction seems reasonable to me.

> 2.) there are apparent overlapping functionality between
> CFI_setpointer() and CFI_section(). It's confusing to understand exactly
> which does what, or when to use which.

Please look at what I have proposed in my vote. Is this OK?

 > It's also not clear to me which
 > one will result in zero-based array section or one-based array
 > section.

I don't see the problem. The lower bounds are held explicitly in the C 
descriptor.

> 3.) allow Fortran ALLOCATABLE variables to be allocated on one side (C
> or Fortran) and then deallocated from the other side. This likely will
> cause many implementation difficulties.

I expect the vendor to make CFI_allocate and CFI_deallocate call Fortran 
code to do the actual allocations and deallocations, so that they all 
happen on the Fortran side.

Best wishes,

John.