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

N.M. Maclaren nmm1
Tue Nov 20 03:46:12 EST 2012

On Nov 20 2012, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>Nick Maclaren writes:
>>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 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.

Nick Maclaren.

More information about the J3 mailing list