(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4526) WG5 ballot on interpretations
Robert Corbett
robert.corbett
Wed Sep 21 05:21:51 EDT 2011
Yes No Number Title
--- -N- F03/0030 IEEE divide by zero
-Y- --- F03/0048 Control edit descriptors in UDDTIO
-Y- --- F03/0085 Finalizing targets of pointer or allocatable
-Y- --- F03/0091 Array components cannot depend on length type parameters
--- -N- F03/0096 Can a read statement change the unit value?
-Y- --- F03/0105 SIZE= specifier and UDDTIO
--- -N- F03/0110 Restoring dropped restriction on ENTRY
-C- --- F03/0121 Precise FP semantics of the REAL intrinsic
-Y- --- F03/0123 Implicit typing in derived types
-Y- --- F03/0124 definition is poorly defined
-Y- --- F03/0128 Subobjects in namelist output
-Y- --- F08/0001 Generic resolution with pointer dummy arguments
-Y- --- F08/0002 Are assumed- or deferred-shape objects allowed in
namelist?
-Y- --- F08/0003 Is a disassociated pointer allowed as an actual DIM
argument?
-Y- --- F08/0004 Is TARGET argument of ASSOCIATED a pointer or nonpointer
dummy?
F08/0005* optional arguments and ASSOCIATED - subsumed by F08/0004
-Y- --- F08/0006 generic resolution with banned argument combinations
-Y- --- F08/0007 Can zero have more than one bit sequence representation?
--- -N- F08/0008 IEEE exceptions for intrinsic functions
-Y- --- F08/0009 Is ABS ever required to be the optional IEC 60559 abs?
-Y- --- F08/0010 deallocating objects that are associated with other
objects
-Y- --- F08/0011 How many times are constructed values finalized?
F08/0012* Are constants finalized? - subsumed by F08/0011
-Y- --- F08/0013 How does finalization interact with allocatable
assignment?
-Y- --- F08/0014 Finalizing assignment to vector-subscripted object
-Y- --- F08/0015 IMPLICIT
-Y- --- F08/0016 Can a vector-subscripted argument become undefined?
-Y- --- F08/0017 Elemental subroutine restrictions
-Y- --- F08/0018 Impure elemental restrictions
-Y- --- F08/0019 Transformational Bessel functions
-Y- --- F08/0020 FINDLOC and logical arguments
-----------------------------------------------
F03/0030
The proposed interpretation and edits make no sense unless
one assumes that the intent is to redefine and repurpose
the function IEEE_SUPPORT_DATATYPE. If that is the intent,
the interpretation and edits should address the issue
directly instead of modifying seemingly unrelated text.
-------------------------------------------------
F03/0096
The second proposed edit prohibits the value of a SIZE=
specifier from depending "on any <input-item>." That
seems to require the value of a SIZE= specifier to be
constant.
--------------------------------------------------
F03/0110
The last sentence of the proposed interpretation
contradicts the conformance clause of the standard.
--------------------------------------------------
F03/0121
Fortran programmers need the functionality proposed
in the request for interpretation. The mechanism
proposed corresponds to what many Fortran programmers
already assume to be the case. The committee should
either adopt the proposed mechanism or provide an
alternative mechanism.
--------------------------------------------------
F08/0008
If the statement in the standard that "the flag
IEEE_INVALID shall signal" is, as is stated in the
interpretation, is incorrect, the text of the
standard should be altered to reflect that.
--------------------------------------------------
Robert Corbett
representing Oracle America
More information about the J3
mailing list