[J3] (SC22WG5.6290) WG5 letter ballot 1 on Fortran 2018 interpretations

Steve Lionel steve at stevelionel.com
Sun Oct 4 11:52:41 EDT 2020

The following Fortran 2018 interpretations are being balloted:

Yes  No Number   Title
 Y --- F18/001  ACOSH principal value specification is wrong
 Y --- F18/002  Internal procedures in generic interface blocks
 Y --- F18/003  Pointer association of component of non-definable selector
 Y  --- F18/004  Program execution sequence with failed images
 Y  --- F18/005  Does INPUT_UNIT really identify the same unit as *?
 Y  --- F18/006  Connection of INPUT_UNIT on different images
 Y  --- F18/008  Contradictory assumed-rank requirements
 Y  --- F18/009  Bad examples in IEEE_ARITHMETIC functions
 Y  --- F18/010  Categories of pure procedures
 Y  --- F18/011  Categories of elemental procedures
 Y  --- F18/012  Internal procedure in a generic interface
 Y  --- F18/013  TEAM_NUMBER arguments and intrinsic function are ambiguous
 Y  --- F18/014  Type of OPERATION arguments to the REDUCE intrinsic
 C  --- F18/015  Example in C.6.8 is wrong
 Y  --- F18/016  Host association changes in Fortran 2018
 Y  --- F18/017  Final subroutine invocation order
 Y  --- F18/018  Public namelist and private variable

Comments on F18/015

While I generally agree with Anton's remarks on 015, I find the suggested
replacement for the calculation of images_spare with three statements to be
unwieldy. He is correct that if NUM_IMAGES() is 10 then there are zero
spare images, not one as the comment suggests, but this is easily fixed. (I
also agree that the ,0 is unnecessary). My suggested replacement is:

 images_spare = MAX(NUM_IMAGES()/100,MIN(NUM_IMAGES()-9,1))

I tested this in the range 1:201 and it delivered the desired result.

Steve Lionel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20201004/6f3ae63a/attachment.htm>

More information about the J3 mailing list