(j3.2006) GB36

Bill Long longb
Thu Oct 6 09:04:09 EDT 2011

Typo in the PDTR number (29913 -> 29113), but otherwise I suggest 
sending it in.


On 10/5/11 12:43 PM, John Reid wrote:
> Bill Long wrote:
>> While we do not always follow it, there is a general bias toward putting
>> Notes at the end of a subclause. Particularly a short one like this,
>> where the gap between the normative text and the related Note is small.
>> This would require slight rewording of the introductory line of the Note.
> I prefer to leave it where it is. J3 can decide on the best position
> next week.
>> Somewhat more problematic (and not related to the Note), the last part
>> of the paragraph, ", and any further use of them is undefined behavior",
>> seems both unnecessary and also wrong. If you later call the function
>> again, and the pointer in question becomes well define again,
> Not if the Fortran processor made copies and used different memory or
> used the same memory but used it for another purpose between the calls.
>> it is
>> certainly not the case that the use of that pointer is "undefined
>> behavior" at that point. Is it not sufficient to just say that the
>> pointer becomes undefined on return from the call (the previous words in
>> the sentence).
> I have changed the wording of the end of my note in an attempt to make
> it clear that it is pointers to the dummy argument that become
> undefined, not pointers to the actual argument.
> Actually, I think "object" in line 3 of the para is ambiguous, but I
> don't have a good suggestion for disambiguation. At least my note should
> help.
> Cheers,
> John.

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 mailing list