(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4534) WG5 ballot 1 on F2008 interpretations

John Reid John.Reid
Thu Sep 22 08:06:07 EDT 2011


           WG5 letter ballot 1 on Fortran 2008 interpretations

Yes  No Number     Title
--- -N- F03/0030   IEEE divide by zero

Reason: I agree with Bob Corbett that it is inappropriate to refer to
IEEE_SUPPORT_DATATYPE since 14.9 makes it clear that support requires:
"for at least one rounding mode, the intrinsic operations of addition,
subtraction and multiplication shall conform whenever the operands and
result specified by IEC 60559:1989 are normal numbers". To avoid a
conflict with IEC 60559:1989, I suggest that the words in the first two
bullets points of 14.3 be changed to apply only to cases where the
operands are normal numbers.

-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
-C- --- F03/0096   Can a read statement change the unit value?

Comment: In the second line of the question change "an" to "a".

-Y- --- F03/0105   SIZE= specifier and UDDTIO
-Y- --- F03/0110   Restoring dropped restriction on ENTRY
-Y- --- 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?
--- -N- F08/0003   Is a disassociated pointer allowed as an actual DIM
                    argument?

Reason: There are too many edits for what is really a small correction.
It would be much better to leave all the optional DIM arguments as
optional and use the form of words used for COUNT. This would more than
halve the number of edits.

--- -N- F08/0004   Is TARGET argument of ASSOCIATED a pointer or
                    nonpointer dummy?

Reason: As the question points out, the descriptions of arguments apply
to actual arguments. In the example, Target is a disassociated pointer
so TARGET in the description is present and is a disassociated pointer.
12.5.2.12 is not applicable here because it is all about dummy
arguments. Case (vi) is applicable and tells us that the result is
false. No edits are needed.

         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?
-Y- --- 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
-C- --- F08/0015   IMPLICIT

Comment: In the edit, delete "confusing". Edits go into the
corrigendum, where we do not include any explanation.

-C- --- F08/0016   Can a vector-subscripted argument become undefined?

Comment: There is a typo in the ANSWER, 'copvers'.

-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






More information about the J3 mailing list