[J3] Question to "The CFI_section function"

Robert Corbett rpcorbett at att.net
Wed Nov 13 18:18:17 EST 2019

I now agree that the wording of
the Description of
CFI_establish should be
improved.  If base_addr is not a
null pointer value and rank is
not zero, the lower bounds must
be set to zero.  The phrase
"if the attribute argument has
the value CFI_attribute_pointer,"
in the second sentence of
paragraph 3 of adds
nothing except for possible

Bob Corbett

> On Nov 12, 2019, at 4:24 AM, Tobias Burnus via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> Hi again,
>> On 11/12/19 1:06 PM, Tobias Burnus via J3 wrote:
>> what's the expected 'lower_bound's of the array descriptor 'result' after a call to " The CFI_section function"? My feeling is that 0 is intended but I cannot find it in the spec.
> Follow-up question: what are the 'lower_bound's after a call to CFI_establish (
> For allocatables, the input is a null pointer/deallocated. And for pointers, there is "if the attribute argument has the value CFI_attribute_pointer, the lower bounds of the object described by dv are set to zero."
> But what's about CFI_attribute_other? Shall they also start at 0 – like most descriptors on the C side? Or at 1 as they would in Fortran or …? The following sentence "The remaining properties of the object are given by the other arguments." does not really help.
> Cheers,
> Tobias
> PS: Are there already some (draft) corrigenda for Fortran 2018? I haven't seen any, but I might have missed them.

More information about the J3 mailing list