(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4840) [ukfortran] WG5 letter ballot 5 on Fortran 2008 interpretations

[N.M. Maclaren]

On Nov 20 2012, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>Nick Maclaren writes:
>>F08/0040
>>
>>I am not convinced about the last sentence of the proposed addition to
>>[372:29+] 13.7.118, p6+, because my understanding is that it is not
>>actually required to be a barrier-type synchronisation.  Would "may be"
>>be better than "is"?
>
>Short answer: No.
>
> Longer answer: I think this needs to be the same kind of synchronisation 
> as ALLOCATE, see 6.7.1.2p4 which contains essentially identical wording 
> (but for ALLOCATE rather than MOVE_ALLOC).
>
>Therefore I think this should pass as is.

Agreed.  It's a very ALLOCATE-like use.  I could argue that both need
improvement, but that's not within the scope of this interpretation.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.