From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1009 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2010 22:39:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 938 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Dec 2010 22:38:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (HELO troutmask.apl.washington.edu) (128.208.78.105) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:38:55 +0000 Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost.apl.washington.edu [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oBFMcrx2032162; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:38:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id oBFMcrTT032161; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:38:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:09:00 -0000 From: Steve Kargl To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: Tobias Burnus , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [wwwdata] Update Fortran section of gcc-4.6/changes.html Message-ID: <20101215223853.GA32120@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <4C6CE567.2080200@net-b.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg01255.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 06:26:31AM +0800, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: > > I have already committed the attached patch, but don't hesitate to suggest > > changes or other improvements. > > > > Cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html#Fortran > > The following snippet sounds a bit confusing to me, though admittedly > I am not a Fortran hacker: > > +
  • Null pointers (including NULL()) and not > + allocated variables can be used as actual argument to optional > + non-pointer, non-allocatable dummy arguments, denoting an absent > + argument.
    • > > Is "actual argument" a standard term? "as actual argument to ... > arguments, denoting an absent argument" sounds a bit tricky. Yes, "actual argument" is a standard term. program test integer i call foo(i) ! i is the actual argument. end program test subroutine foo(j) ! j is the dummy argument. integer j print *, j end subroutine foo In the standard, one finds passages of like "'i' is the actual argument associated with the dummy argument 'j'". I'll suggest a rewording of the form
  • Null pointers and unallocated allocatable variables can be used as actual arguments to optional non-pointer, non-allocatable dummy arguments to denote an absent argument.
    • -- Steve