(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5290) Las Vegas minutes
John Reid
John.Reid
Wed Jul 2 10:01:01 EDT 2014
Dear all,
Here are draft minutes of the meeting last week. Comments, please.
David says he would appreciate some help with section 5. Please feel
free to suggest changes, particularly if you are one of the people who
gave a report.
Thanks, David, for providing us with such an excellent first draft.
Cheers,
John.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
-------------- next part --------------
ISO/IEC JTC/SC22/WG5 N2020-1
Minutes of Meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5
Hosted by INCITS/PL22.3, the US Member Body for JTC1/SC22
in Las Vegas, NV, USA
June 23-27, 2014
List of Participants:
John Reid (JKR Associates, UK) convenor
Dan Nagle (NCAR, USA) PL22.3 chair
Reinhold Bader (Leibniz Supercomputing Centre, Germany)
Daniel Chen (IBM, Canada)
Malcolm Cohen (NAG, UK)
Bob Corbett (Oracle, USA)
Alessandro Fanfarillo (University of Rome, Italy & NCAR, USA) (Monday
and Tuesday)
Steve Lionel (Intel, USA)
Bill Long (Cray, USA)
Nick Maclaren (University of Cambridge, UK)
Jeanne Martin (former WG5 convenor, USA)
Lorri Menard (Intel, USA)
Toon Moene (Gnu Fortran, Netherlands)
David Muxworthy (British Standards Institution, UK)
Craig Rasmussen (University of Oregon, USA)
Damian Rouson (Sourcery Inc, USA) (Tuesday and Wednesday)
Van Snyder (Caltech/JPL, USA)
Masayuki Takata (Edogawa University, Japan)
Notes:
1. This was a joint meeting of SC22/WG5 and INCITS/PL22.3. These
minutes record only the parts of the meeting in WG5 mode.
2. WG5 papers are referenced as Nnnnn. They are available from
http://www.nag.co.uk/SC22WG5/
3. INCITS/PL22.3 is abbreviated throughout to PL22.3 and its papers
are referenced as J3/14-nnn. They are available from
http://www.j3-fortran.org/
4. During the meeting TS 18508 "Additional Parallel Features in
Fortran" was referenced by its informal name "Further Coarray TS"
and is so recorded in these minutes.
1. Opening of the Meeting
The meeting opened at 08:08 on 23rd June 2014.
2. Opening business
2.1 Introductory remarks from the Convenor
The convenor said that the principal objectives of the meeting were to
develop the draft TS on further coarray facilities and to choose the
list of deficiencies and discrepancies in Fortran 2008 to be addressed
in the next revision. There would be initial set of straw votes on
items that had been proposed and they would then be passed to
subgroups for more detailed consideration.
2.2 Welcome from the Host
Steve Lionel welcomed participants on behalf of PL22.3.
2.3 Local arrangements
Steve Lionel invited participants to dinner at Battista's restaurant
on the Wednesday evening.
2.4 Appointments for this meeting
The drafting committee would be Reinhold Bader, Daniel Chen, Toon
Moene, David Muxworthy (chair), Steve Lionel and Masayuki Takata.
David Muxworthy would act as secretary and John Reid as librarian.
2.5 Adoption of the agenda (N2010)
The preliminary agenda was adopted.
2.6 Approval of the minutes of the Delft 2013 Meeting (N1977)
The minutes of the 2013 meeting had been discussed and approved by
email during July 2013. It was noted that minutes are now circulated
for approval by WG5 letter ballot approximately one month after each
meeting.
3. Matters arising from the minutes
There were no items not otherwise on the agenda.
4. Status of Delft 2013 Resolutions [N1978]
There was nothing to report.
5. Reports
5.1 SC22 Matters (Convener)
Convenorship. John Reid's term as convenor would end in September
2014. He was willing to continue for one more three-year term but
would stand aside if any other member wished to volunteer for the
post. He was encouraged to continue for another three years.
Change in ISO rules. Changes to rules meant that every working group
member was acting as an individual and did not represent a member
body. However since SC22 ballots were conducted on a country by
country basis, it was proposed to continue WG5 procedures as before,
that is recording country positions as well as taking votes by
individual members. National activity reports would be optional.
Document archive. ISO required that all working group documents be
held on their website. It had been agreed that all SC22 documents
should have open access. John Reid was in the process of moving the
WG5 archive to the ISO website, rearranging the documents into year
folders, rather than using the current system of folders of 50
documents. ISO also required working groups to use their email
system. It was hoped that the current email system would continue.
WG23 (Vulnerabilities). This matter was postponed to the
Vulnerabilities liaison report (5.5 below).
5.2 National Activity Reports
Canada: There was little standards activity related to Fortran.
Germany: No report.
Japan: Translation of Fortran 2008 continued. Japan had been
proposing in the SC22 ballot to vote against disbandment
of WG23.
Netherlands: The Programming Languages Committee, paralleling SC22,
meets twice a year.
UK: The report is in N2017. The main item of interest was
arrangements for the 2015 WG5 meeting in London. There
was also related information in N2018 and N2019.
US: The main activity was that of PL22.3.
5.3 Report from Primary Development Body (INCITS/PL22.3)
Development had been proceeding to schedule. All items specified by
WG5, other than conformance to ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559:2011, had been
implemented.
5.4 Reports from other Development Bodies (Editors/Heads)
Interoperability TS: Bill Long
Development of the Further Coarray TS was proceeding.
5.5 Liaison Reports:
NCITS/PL22.11 (C): Dan Nagle
Open MP would not incorporate OpenNCC.
MPI: Bill Long
There was progress in updating interfacing from Fortran 95 to
Fortran 2008. In particular there was progress on modules. It
had been agreed to drop Fortran 77 support.
UPC: Damian Rouson
No report.
IFIP/WG2.5: Van Snyder
An IEEE project would be set up after the July 2014 meeting in
Vienna. John Reid had offered to talk on the Further Coarray TS.
OpenMP: Bill Long
OpenMP 4.10 would be out in April 2015.
WG23 (Vulnerabilities): Dan Nagle
WG23 had not met since the last WG5 meeting as no meeting had
been called. A motion in PL22 to propose that WG23 be disbanded
had failed but a subsequent PL22 letter ballot had succeeded.
The motion had been forwarded to SC22 for an SC22 letter ballot.
This was initially accepted but then cancelled on the grounds
that such an important decision should not be made by letter
ballot. The matter was to be discussed at the SC22 plenary
meeting in September 2014.
Ada contributors had stopped work until the politics had been
resolved. Certain members of the C++ committee were thought to
be the principal motivators in proposing disbandment. WG5 had
been asked if it would publish the next edition of TR24772 but
WG5 had neither the resources nor the expertise.
As well as the Vulnerabilities TR the working group had the project
DIS17960, Code Signing for Source Code.
6. Construct the PDTS on Further Coarray Features.
Apart from a WG5 straw vote taken on Thursday, development of the PDTS
was conducted in PL22.3 mode throughout the week. In total 17 PL22.3
papers with edits to N2007 were approved (viz 14-141r2, 14-147r1,
14-148r2, 14-151r3, 14-152r2, 14-156r3, 14-157r2, 14-158r3, 14-160r4,
14-173r2, 14-185r1, 14-200, 14-203, 14-205r1, 14-210, 14-212r1,
14-213r1).
7. Consider the Fortran defect reports (interpretations) in J3/14-006.
No defect reports were presented for WG5 consideration at this meeting.
8. Construct list of deficiencies and discrepancies in Fortran 2008
to be addressed in the next revision.
To guide discussion at the meeting, straw votes were held on proposals
submitted for possible changes to Fortran 2008.
N2015 DIN-A SELECT RANK block construct: 3 yes-8 no-4 undecided
N2015 DIN-B Extension to SELECT TYPE construct: 2-10-3
N2015 DIN-C Placement allocation: 2-10-3
N2016 UK-11 Assumed coshape: 5-2-8
N2016 UK-12 File-unit connection: 8-2-5
N2016 UK-13 I/O error conditions: 9-1-5
N2016 UK-14 Minimal exponent width: 7-1-6
N2016 UK-15 GENERIC statement as alternative to interface block: 12-0-3
N2016 UK-16 INTENT(IN) and VALUE: 14-0-0
N2016 UK-17 Recursion by default: 7-4-3
N2016 UK-18 Consistency of intrinsic arguments: 14-0-0
N2016 UK-19 COSHAPE intrinsic: 11-0-3
N2016 UK-20 Bitwise logical functions: 7-4-3
N2016 UK-21 Numeric conversion check: 3-4-7
N2016 UK-22 RANDOM_NUMBER intrinsic: The vote was taken on
whether this matter needed attention: 13-1-0
US-18 (J3/14-101r1) Add optional type-spec for the ac-do-variable
in an array constructor implied-DO: 8-0-7
US-19 (J3/14-128r)1 Making WHERE obsolescent: 1-9-5
US-20 (J3/14-165) PROTECTED attribute for types: 1-6-8
It was decided that edits relevant to the Further Coarray TS agreed
during the meeting should be written relative to the TS rather than
to the revised language document.
[PL22.3 plenary and subgroup sessions from 11:15 to 17:00]
The meeting adjourned at 17:00.
...........................................................................
Tuesday
An early draft of N2023 listed preliminary decisions on whether or not
to progress the items for language revision listed above. This
document was agreed.
As the schedules in N1979 had not been adhered to, an early draft of
N2024 was presented which gave three options for scheduling the two
principal projects. After discussion they were voted on separately as
follows.
Plan A: Delay both the Further Coarray TS and the language revision
for one year. Straw vote: 10 yes - 2 no - 3 undecided
Plan B: Incorporate the further coarray facilities into the language
revision which would cause a delay on the language standard of
eight months. Straw vote: 5 yes - 7 no - 3 undecided
Plan C: Keep the current schedule for the language revision and
address the TS to the revision, delaying the TS by two years
and eight months. Straw vote: 5 yes - 7 no - 3 undecided
[PL22.3 plenary session from 08:40 to 10:30]
There were further straw votes on items for which the J3 subgroup /jor
had recommended no action. These were:
N2016 UK-20 Bitwise logical functions: 10 not do - 3 do - 2 undecided
N2016 UK-21 Numeric conversion check: 2 not do - 9 do - 4 undecided
There was also a straw vote on a new J3 paper:
J3/14-201 undeprecate FORALL: 1 do - 12 not do - 3 undecided
[PL22.3 plenary session from 10:40 to 11:45]
There was a straw vote during discussion in J3 mode of item N2016
UK-17 Recursion by default: Should elemental functions be allowed to
be recursive? 12 yes - 1 no - 2 undecided
Alessandro Fanfarillo gave a presentation on "Coarrays in GNU Fortran"
in which he compared performance of benchmark coarray programs on
various systems. The slides are in document N2022. This was followed
by discussion.
[PL22.3 subgroup sessions from 12:45 to 16:00]
Malcolm Cohen gave a presentation on the changes necessary to make the
next revision of Fortran compliant with ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559:2011
(requirements UK-09 and US-14, ref N1982). Details are in papers
J3/14-196 and J3/14-198.
[PL22.3 plenary sessions from 16:45 to 17:10]
Following a brief discussion there was a straw vote on the preferred
length of WG5 meetings. The result was:
5.5 to 6 days: 5 - 4.5 to 5 days: 5 - undecided 6.
The meeting adjourned at 17:15.
...........................................................................
Wednesday
[PL22.3 plenary session from 08:00 to 09:45 with WG5 intermissions]
Arising from discussions on papers in J3 mode, there were WG5 straw
votes on the principle, rather than the specific detail, of adding
items to the list of approved proposals. These were as follows.
UK-17 Recursion by default: 11 yes - 1 no - 3 undecided
UK-11 Assumed coshape: 1 yes - 2 no - 12 undecided
this was treated as a 'no'
J3/14-202 <integer-type-spec> in <ac-implied-do> and <data-implied-do>:
accepted unanimously
J3/14-196&198 (requirements UK-09 and US-14) Conformance to
ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559:2011: 9 yes - 0 no - 5 undecided
UK-08 Reduction intrinsic REDUCE.
Remove REDUCE from N2014: 7 yes - 3 no - 6 undecided.
Nevertheless there were two WG5 straw votes on details of
REDUCE: Specify a default for a zero-sized array when IDENTITY is
absent: 0 yes - 9 no - 5 undecided
What is the result of reducing a zero-sized array:
11 error - 0 processor dependent - 5 undecided
Subsequent processing in both WG5 (straw votes on Friday) and PL22.3
modes restored REDUCE as an active item.
Future meetings were discussed, as recorded at 11.1 below.
[PL22.3 plenary and subgroup and US TAG sessions from 10:15 to 16:30]
A revised draft of N2024 was discussed and withdrawn for further
development. A hybrid of plans A and B was suggested: The TS to be
delayed by a year. The revision also to be delayed by a year but
incorporation of TS to start on time.
Attention was drawn to the first set of draft resolutions on the website.
[PL22.3 plenary session from 16:45 to 17:00]
The meeting adjourned at 17:00 and was followed by the meeting social
event at Battista's restaurant.
...........................................................................
Thursday
A revised draft of N2024 was considered. This included the new plan
AB. In discussion it emerged that plan AB was the most preferred and
this was confirmed by a straw vote:
10 yes - 3 no - 2 undecided
There was a straw vote on whether to adopt a new proposal to enhance
the CMPLX intrinsic function: 8 yes - 0 no - 7 undecided
[PL22.3 plenary and subgroup sessions from 08:25 to 17:00 with
WG5 intermissions]
There was a straw vote on whether the further coarray features should
require asynchronous progress: 8 yes - 1 no - 6 undecided
The draft resolutions were reviewed and minor changes made.
The meeting adjourned at 17:00.
...........................................................................
Friday
The latest draft of the resolutions was discussed and minor edits
suggested.
[PL22.3 plenary session from 08:20 to 10:20 with WG5 intermission]
There was a straw vote on whether the REDUCE function should have an
argument to enforce strict left to right evaluation.
This went: 8 yes - 3 no - 4 undecided
A further straw vote on whether to allow control of commutability
went: 1 yes - 10 no - 5 undecided
9. Review of the current draft of the next revision.
The draft was still being developed.
10. WG5 Business and Strategic Plans
10.1 Goals for 2014-2017
These had been discussed throughout the week and led to the plans in
N1024.
11. Closing Business
11.1 Future meetings
Arrangements for the 2016 WG5 meeting in Boulder were discussed. The
straw vote on first preferences for dates was:
June 5-10: 10 - July 31-August 5: 3 - August 7-12: 1.
On hotels, low price was considered more important than distance from
the meeting venue.
There was a discussion on the venue for the 2017 meeting. There was a
slight preference for Munich over Tokyo with August suggested as the
most likely date.
11.2 Any other business
None was raised.
12. Adoption of Resolutions (N2021)
Resolutions LV1, LV2, LV9, LV10 and LV11 were approved by unanimous
acclaim. Resolution LV3 passed after a vote - 12 yes, 2 no, 1 abstain.
Resolutions LV4 to LV8 were approved by unanimous consent.
There was a discussion on the future of the WG5 document archive, the
website and the email systems but there was insufficient information
available to make useful proposals. It was thought that the position
would be clearer following the SC22 meeting in September.
13. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 on Friday, June 27, 2014.
More information about the J3
mailing list