MINUTES OF MEETING 122 X3J3 FORTRAN August 3-7, 1992 Bellevue, Washington X3J3/Meeting 122/271 Table Of Contents 1 Agenda.............................................1 2 Opening Business...................................2 2.1 Meeting Objectives.................................2 2.2 Adoption of the Final Agenda.......................2 2.3 Approval of Meeting 121 Minutes....................2 2.4 X3/BSR Report......................................2 2.5 Membership/Attendance Report.......................2 2.6 Treasurer's Report.................................2 2.7 Comments from the Membership.......................4 2.8 Subgroup Assignments...............................4 2.9 WG5 Reports........................................4 2.9.1 Jerry Wagener's Report.............................5 2.9.2 Jeanne Martin's Report.............................5 2.9.3 Ivor Philips' Report...............................6 2.10 X3H5 Report........................................6 2.11 POSIX..............................................6 2.12 Electronic Processing..............................7 3 Committee Action Items.............................7 3.1 Interpretations Processing - August 4..............7 3.1.1 CIO................................................7 3.1.2 DATA...............................................7 3.1.3 PROC...............................................7 3.2 Publication of the S20 in Fortran Forum............7 3.3 HPF Report.........................................8 3.4 Appointment of the X3J3 Representative to the WG5 Management Committee..............................11 3.5 Interpretations Procedures........................11 3.6 Interpretations Processing - August 5.............14 3.7 Response to the POSIX Request.....................14 3.8 SD-3 for the Next Revision of Fortran.............14 3.9 Compiler Directives...............................14 3.10 R&R Document......................................15 3.11 Interpretations Processing - August 6.............15 3.11.1 CIO...............................................15 3.11.2 DATA..............................................15 3.11.3 GEN...............................................15 3.11.4 PROC..............................................15 3.12 CLIP Review.......................................16 3.13 JOD Report........................................16 3.14 Response to the POSIX Request.....................16 3.15 Intent to Proceed with the Revision...............16 3.16 Report on the BSR Meeting.........................16 3.17 Interpretations Processing - August 7.............16 3.17.1 CIO...............................................16 3.17.2 DATA..............................................16 3.17.3 GEN...............................................17 3.17.4 PROC..............................................17 3.17.5 Interpretations Summary...........................17 3.18 X3J3 SD-1 Replacement.............................18 3.19 R & R Document S14.122............................18 4 Closing Business..................................18 4.1 Comments from Members.............................18 4.2 Membership Report.................................18 4.3 Treasurer's Report................................18 4.4 Adjournment.......................................18 5 Document Lists....................................18 5.1 Current Standing Documents........................18 5.2 1992 Document Register............................18 5.3 1992 Documents By Meeting.........................22 5.3.1 Meeting 121 Documents.............................22 5.3.2 Meeting 122 Documents.............................22 6 Committee Organization............................22 6.1 Officers..........................................22 6.2 Liaison Assignments...............................22 6.3 Subgroups.........................................22 7 Future Meetings and Distribution Assignments......23 8 Membership........................................24 8.1 Meeting Attendance................................24 8.2 X3J3 Principal Members............................25 8.3 X3J3 Alternate Members............................29 8.4 Observers, Liaisons, Consultants, etc.............33 8.5 ISO/WG5...........................................39 1 1 Agenda Agenda for X3J3 Meeting 122 Monday, August 3, 1992 8:00 Opening Business J. Wagener 9:00 Report and Discussion from WG5 Meeting (92-135) J. Wagener, J. Martin, I. Philips Report from X3H5, POSIX Report from Electronic Processing Ad-Hoc Group J. Himer Subgroup Meetings (92-098, 92Jun17 email) Tuesday, August 4, 1992 8:00 Interpretation Processing (92-121,122,123, A. Tait, subgroups 126,127,128,129,130,131,132,134,135) 10:00 HPF Report K. Kennedy Publication of S20 in Fortran Forum L. Meissner Appointment of the WG5 Management Committee Representative and S14 Editor Subgroup Meetings Wednesday, August 5, 1992 8:00 POSIX Compiler Directives S14 9:30 Boeing Tour 1:30 Interpretation Processing A. Tait, subgroups Subgroup Meetings 4:00 US TAG Organizational Session I. Philips Thursday, August 6, 1992 8:00 Interpretation Processing A. Tait, subgroups 10:00 Final Resolution on WG5 Actions (S14) Final Action on POSIX Request (92-128, 92Jul16 email) CLIP Review (WG5-N730) K. Hirchert JOD Report (S17) K. Bierman Subgroup Meetings Friday, August 7, 1992 8:00 BSR Report Interpretation Processing A. Tait, subgroups Compiler Directives (92-124) R. Weaver 2 SD-1 Replacement, if time permits (92-032) J. Wagener New SD-3 draft (project proposal) 12:00 Closing Business (92-125) M. Hoffert 1:00 Adjournment 2:00 US TAG Session I. Philips 3 2 Opening Business 2.1 Meeting Objectives 1. Process interpretations and update the S20 2. Reply to the POSIX request (92-128) 3. Generate the R&R document (S14) 2.2 Adoption of the Final Agenda Discussion Leader: Jerry Wagener Discussion: Weaver: New items should not wait until the last day. People need time to go off and research them further after their initial presentation. Moss: We should have a firm adjournment time, which should appear on the published agenda. Action: To approve the agenda as modified (see section 1); unanimous consent 2.3 Approval of Meeting 121 Minutes Discussion: Walt Brainerd's name is spelled incorrectly several times. Action: To approve the minutes with Walt's name corrected; unanimous consent 2.4 X3/BSR Report Discussion Leader: Jerry Wagener Fortran 90: The BSR is meeting this week and one of their agenda items is the approval of Fortran 90. They are scheduled to act on Fortran 90 on Thursday. An attempt will be made to report on the results of that action Friday morning. X3 Documents: X3J3/92-133 is a list of X3 documents which are of potential interest to X3J3 members. It will include all relevant standards actions. Anyone desiring one of the listed documents should contact Jerry. If there are no objections, this list will be distributed at each meeting instead of distributing each of the documents in its entirety. 2.5 Membership/Attendance Report Discussion Leader: Maureen Hoffert Discussion: There are currently 33 members, 27 of which are present. There are 4 members who will lose their membership if they don't attend this meeting. 2.6 Treasurer's Report Discussion Leader: Mallory North Discussion: North: We have a balance of about $400 going into this meeting but bonding fees for Jerry and myself are $100 each. Weaver: Doesn't CBEMA cover bonding expenses? Ellis: We should get CBEMA to pay the bonding fees if they are willing. North: I'll look into this. Motion: (Lauson/Moss) to accept the Treasurer's report Action: motion passed by unanimous consent 4 TREASURER'S REPORT MEETING 121 X3J3 FORTRAN TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE 1. Meeting Attendees who paid the $80.00 meeting fee (* denotes attendees who were exempted by vote of the Committee): Keith H. Bierman Alex Marusak Richard P. Bleikamp David Mattoon Walt Brainerd C. Mallory North Lauren Feaux David Philimore Dick Hendrickson Ivor R. Philips * Jim Himer Doug Scofield Kurt W. Hirchert Janice Shepherd Henry S. Katz Maureen Smith- Hoffert Tom Lahey Jon Steidel * Hank Lauson Andre w Tait Richard E. Maine Jerrold Wagener Jeanne T. Martin Dick Weaver Stan Whitlock 2. Deposits and disbursements: ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------- CheckDate AmountBalance Transaction Purpose ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------- 5/22/92 .00 Balance forward 5/22/92+80.00 80.00 Deposit meeting 121 fees 5/26/92+1200.001280.00 Deposit meeti ng 121 fees 5/28/92+480.001760.00 Deposit meeti ng 121 fees 5/29/92+80.001840.00 Deposit meeting 121 fees 1016/ 5/92-69.571770.43 Mallory North refreshments 1026/ 5/92-33.891736.54 Rose-Hulman Institute maili ng costs 1036/ 5/92 -8.001728.54 Mallory North zippered money bag 1046/ 5/92-759.76968.78 ARA Serve, Inc. refreshmen ts 6/ 5/92 -8.40960.38 Bank debit endorsement stamp 6/ 8/92 -9.50950.88 Bank debit check order 1056/ 9/92 -8.75942.13 Rose-Hulman Institute sign printing 5 1066/12/92-141.43800.70 Rose-Hulman Institute van/c ar mileage 1076/12/92-254.00546.70 Christopher M. Doyle meeti ng 121 assistant 1086/18/92-142.48404.22 Rose-Hulman Institute repro duction 6/30/92 -3.09401.13 Bank debit bank service charge ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------- 3. Debts outstanding: None 4. Receivables outstanding: None 5. Room rentals donated at no cost to X3J3: $1625.00 Provided by: The Boston Connection Hotel, FIDS room, $250.00 Rose Hulman Institute, meeting rooms, $1375.00 2.7 Comments from the Membership Tait: Fax numbers should be included in the membership list section of the minutes. Hoffert: It will be done next time. Lauson: I would like to be excused from paying the meeting fee. Motion: (Lahey/Meissner) Excuse Hank Lauson from paying the meeting fee. Action: motion passed by unanimous consent. Philips: As Alvin Mong will only be attending part of the meeting, I would like to request that he also be excused from paying the meeting fee. [This was withdrawn after several members objected.] Hoffert: We need to address the issue of meeting attendance. Currently, a member is considered as having attended the meeting if they show up for part of one day. I will put something on the table at the next meeting. Ellis: If you are here at all, you should pay the full fee. Leonard: You should only have to pay the fee if you are credited with having attended the meeting. answer: These are quite different issues. If you attend any part of the meeting, you make use of those things which the meeting fee is intended to cover, e.g. copying expenses. Rose: There is a problem with not sending material to alternates - it left me coming to this meeting without the materials. Wagener: We do make exceptions in the case of alternates who attend regularly. 6 Weaver: I view email much like a phone conversation and the cumulative email should not be published and distributed at the meeting. Tait: All I am distributing is interpretations related material. Hirchert: Who is responsible for and what is the purpose of the abridged FORTRAN 77 standard. Weaver: I did this to help those who do not want to carry the full FORTRAN 77 standard to the meetings. Hirchert: The email mailing list for interpretations is intended to be informal. Bierman: I would like to see a synopsis of the email published but not all of it. This will allow us to ensure that all issues are addressed. Leonard: I don't know which email messages to bring, I would request that formal proposals and requests appear in the pre-meeting or distributed at the meeting. Weaver: There are no formal proposals in the email. Ellis: I assume that anything important will be submitted on paper for the meeting. Wagener: Perhaps we should revisit paper 92-027. straw: Andrew should provide a document containing all of the email. (13-12-5) J. Martin: The email distribution is useful as Andrew does provide some analysis of it. Wagener: This discussion indicates that we need to look for a better way, if there is one. Weaver: What is the status of the procedures document? Hoffert: It's ongoing. 2.8 Subgroup Assignments Tait: Paper 92-123 lists the initial subgroup assignments. More assignments will be made throughout the meeting. 2.9 WG5 Reports Discussion Leaders: Jerry Wagener, Jeanne Martin, and Ivor Philips. 2.9.1 Jerry Wagener's Report Strategic Plan Adopted (WG5/SD-4, N820a, 92-011) + near-term (1995-96) revision, with "train model" + needs database / requirements (WG5) + development / maintenance (X3J3) + auxiliary standards policy (supplementary, extension) + R & R documents WG5 Resolutions (N814d) + provisional selection of X3J3 as the primary development body ( need I-type SD-3 by mid-year 1993) + corrigenda processing (X3J3 provides S20, plus a list of those S20 items ready for WG5 adoption following the November 1992 X3J3 meeting. + WG5 management committee 7 2.9.2 Jeanne Martin's Report References: 92-135 Discussion: Leonard: What is the publishing plan for the revision or corrigenda? An updated document would be helpful for us in processing interpretations. J. Martin: When you order the standard, you will receive the corrigenda in addition to the standard. Wagener: There are no plans as yet to create an updated document although I would like to get on with one as soon as possible. Leonard: We should create an updated working draft after the corrigenda is done. Meissner: The issue of X3J3 only being conditionally approved as the primary development body should be a serious concern to X3J3. There was serious consideration given by WG5 to not using X3J3 at all. The current state is a compromise, i.e. let's give the X3 I-type project rules a chance. Philips: We should rewrite the document for the revision and we should decide on the document format, i.e. Tex, SGML, etc. Hirchert: There isn't time to rewrite the document before 1995 although we may have to make some changes in order to conform to the ISO style. Moss: I believe that the ISO rules allow the publishing of an integrated document rather than publishing the corrigenda separately. Ellis: The ISO rules require that the document be provided by the technical committee. Therefore, they will publish whatever we give them. Weaver: WG5 considered forming a task group to be the primary development body. Their feeling was that this task group would look much like X3J3, but it would operate under ISO rules instead of X3 rules. John Hill and Bill Rinehuls should be informed of this. Leonard: If such a task group were formed, rules would have to be established for it in order to protect the vendors in the same way that the ANSI/X3 rules do today. Ellis: All major vendors already work on international standards and they wouldn't if there weren't rules in place. WG5's desire is for the primary development body to operate under one set of rules. The X3 I-type project rules should do this. WG5 recognizes that X3J3 has the technical expertise and the financial support to do the work. 8 Bierman: Working as a task group of WG5 saves the time spent explaining X3J3 rules to WG5 and WG5 rules to X3J3. At the WG5 meeting, Lawrie Schonfelder wondered why the US was special, i.e. why should any national body develop an international standard. Meissner: We must start thinking about what to do if an I-type project is not in place by 6/30/93. Philips: We are probably exaggerating our concern here as X3 has other I-type projects in place and they seem to be working well. WG5 was also concerned that X3 may change the rules mid-project as they did last time. 2.9.3 Ivor Philips' Report Philips: It was a very positive meeting. [Ivor reviewed the strategic plan and the resolutions which are most important to X3J3. He also brought up the issues of Pointer initialization, Pointer bounds, and the deletion of features in the next revision.] Wagener: [Jerry read resolution V9, the request for X3J3 to be the primary development body operating under I-type project rules by 6/30/93, as the printed copy won't be available until later in the day.] I will be discussing the facts contained in the resolutions with X3. I will also reference written items from these minutes and Jeanne's report. We must decide this week if we are going to do ahead with this and begin preparing a SD-3 project proposal based on this resolution. Moss: The pointer nullification issue is not an item for a technical corrigenda but rather is an item for the revision. Bierman: WG5 expects X3J3 to review this issue. They would probably accept the decision of X3J3 regarding whether of not this is an item for a technical corrigenda or for a revision. Meissner: Our new SD-3 should provide for the possible deletion of features. Weaver: I discussed with both Lawrie Schonfelder and Wolfgang Walter the possibility of providing a user option to indicate whether or not pointers are to be initialized. I would like to downsize the language by removing constraints, i.e. extending the language in a natural way. J. Martin: [Jeanne described the amendment procedure and indicated that it would take longer than a revision.] If we did an amendment before a revision, we would have to amend 2 standards: the ANSI Fortran 90 standard and the ISO Fortran standard. 9 2.10 X3H5 Report Wagener: I have asked Jon Steidel to put together a parallel processing subgroup and to lead that group. Keith Bierman will be a member and will be the X3H5 liaison. This group will be responsible for interfacing with both X3H5 and HPFF. Bierman: X3H5 is now balloting their model document to determine if it is ready to go out for public review. The FORTRAN 77 binding has been withdrawn. At this point, X3 has only approved the project to develop the model document. Their current active membership is 12 or 13. 2.11 POSIX Reference: 92-128 Wagener: We will vote on some response to the request later this week. Joanne Brixius has served as our liaison to the FORTRAN 77 bindings and is willing to do so for the Fortran 90 bindings. Weaver: I was at the last .9 meeting and was 1/3 of the attendees. Wagener: We should ask to be the IEEE equivalent of the coordinating liaison. Weaver: At the meeting, the group was receptive to the idea of a Fortran 90 module but all of their anticipated feature cannot be contained in a module.. They anticipate the point at which they will need extensions to the Fortran language. In particular, they will probably need some extensions in the I/O area. Hoffert: I spoke to the head of the US TAG to the POSIX Working Group and he indicated that a coordination point could be established which allows us to approve the bindings document. The coordination point can require a coordination ballot. We should review the work as it proceeds rather than just being in the position to reject or approve their work when they send it out to their balloting group. Philips: John Hill had asked me to give coordinating information to the POSIX WG. Hoffert: Jeanne Adams was required to send a letter indicating that we had coordinated with .9 in the development of the FORTRAN 77 bindings. Bierman: Dick Weaver should be our liaison to .9 instead of Joanne Brixius. Leonard: Instead of .9 developing extensions to Fortran, they should submit a list of requirements to the appropriate X3J3 technical subgroup which will draft the specifications. Weaver: You should note that the Fortran 90 binding is referred to as 1003.19, but the committee is still called 1003.9. Rather than raise issues 10 as to who should do what work, we should work with them. 2.12 Electronic Processing Hirchert: I am in the process of setting up an FTP server. Email will be sent out when it is ready. 3 Committee Action Items 3.1 Interpretations Processing - August 4 3.1.1 CIO Motion: (Bleikamp/Tait) Accept 92-071 [unresolved issue 13; S20 item 3] Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Motion: (Bleikamp/Tait) Accept 92-073 [unresolved issue 15; S20 item 5] Action: motion passed by unanimous consent 3.1.2 DATA Motion: (Moss/O'Gara) Unresolved issue 39 is resolved by S20 item 13 Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Motion: (Moss/O'Gara) Unresolved issue 62 is resolved by S20 item 21 Action: motion passed by unanimous consent 3.1.3 PROC Motion: (Hirchert/Hoffert) Unresolved issue 44 is resolved by S20 item 20 Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Motion: (Hirchert/Hoffert) Unresolved issue 53 is resolved in the same paper Action: motion passed by unanimous consent 3.2 Publication of the S20 in Fortran Forum Meissner: I am willing to publish all or part of the S20 in Fortran Forum, but I would like some direction from X3J3 regarding which items should be published. straw: Choice 1: Publish the items which have second level approval as of the end of this meeting. Choice 2: Publish the items which are forwarded to WG5 after the November meeting. Choice 3: Publish the items that are approved by the WG5 letter ballot. Choice 4: Undecided. Vote: (3-3-21-2) 11 3.3 HPF Report Discussion Leader: Ken Kennedy Scribe: Jeanne Martin Reference: 92-146 High Performance Fortran Forum Discussion: Leonard: What do you mean by node? Ans: I prefer to factor out the operating system and think of processors. --- Could a node be a UNIX process or thread? Ans: Yes, but some people would be horrified; they think of actual processors in a multi processor system. --- It would be possible to construct threads in an operating system to control processes. Ans: The proposed extensions could be implemented that way, but the language makes assumptions that there will be processors implementing a data parallel program. The implementation you suggest is not precluded. Oglesby: Could you say more about the Fortran 90 subset? Ans: It would include the array sublanguage, procedure interfaces, and syntactic extensions such as long names and ! for comments. There is some question about modules. There are two factions. One is in favor of basing the HPF extensions on the full Fortran 90 language, but the other, more transition-oriented faction, is winning out. They fear that it would take too much time as there may be some implementation difficulty with modules. The final decision on modules and the subset will be made in October. Hendrickson: How portable will this be? The Thinking Machines connection machine is quite different from the Cray YMP. The directives will work, but will the program be high performance? Ans: Fortran-D tried to address this. We have run tests on both TM and Intel machines and our extensions appeared to accommodate both targets with great efficiency. There were a variety of tests; 50% of our tests specify regular array distributions and 40% specify irregular array distributions. Meissner: Will it be necessary to redo the mappings when moving to a new architecture? Ans: Yes. Again we have some experience along this line with Fortran D Shepherd: Do you plan to provide a document on how to use the language? Ans: A number of documents have been or will be produced by research organizations. Due to our accelerated schedule, I am reluctant to 12 ask for more from the current participants of HPFF. Lahey: We are a standards body. Your goals are to get similar implementations. Has your group agreed to provide them? Ans: The group includes implementers in Japan and Europe - not just the US. There is no commitment to produce similar implementations, and there will probably be variations, but we believe there are solid economic reasons for making the implementations similar. Moss: You are proposing to accommodate sequence and storage association which we all know are undesirable. If you let them in now, they will be there forever. Ans: We are ready to accept that. --- Are you planning a large number of intrinsics? Ans: Our strategy is to minimize the number of new intrinsics. --- I second that strategy; there are already too many in Fortran 90. Ans: We will need a few that are necessary for parallel applications. Martin, J: It is our intention to produce a short term revision including corrections and clarifications to Fortran 90 and perhaps a few extensions in the 1995-1996 time frame. Would your group like to see some of your extensions, such as FORALL, included in this revision. Ans: Yes, very much. We are not going to standardize anything. We have been careful to follow the Fortran 90 declarative syntax rules for our proposed directives. Meissner: Are you concerned about antitrust considerations? Ans: We have tried to make our process as open as possible and we need to keep it open. There is a limit on the number of representatives from one organization. Also, in order to get the work done, we have limited the attendance to those who are committed to really working hard. Oglesby: What is your relationship with the X3H5 work? Ans: We do not conflict with X3H5 proposals except for DO INDEPENDENT so we are not inconsistent. One could have both kinds of parallelism in the same code. Shepherd: Can the distribution directives be applied to allocatable arrays and pointers. Ans: The distribution subgroup is looking at that. --- Do you anticipate there being a second round once your initial proposal is completed in 13 1993. Will there be a revision in 1994? If not, how do you plan to resolve requests for interpretation and clarification. Each implementer might implement a feature in a slightly different way: DEC might do it one way, Cray another, Convex or SSI another. To accept any code, a compiler might have to have three switches. Ans: Apart from FORALL, the language consists of directives. Take those away and the code would be Fortran 90 conforming. The rest is optimization. If there is no one to answer interpretation and clarification questions, it might fall on the people in this room. The authors of the HPF document could always be asked. Weaver: To have the program defined by Fortran 90 with directives is a powerful position. The important thing is portability. If there were things you wanted to do but couldn't, could you tell us what they are? You have considerable expertise, so after your December meeting, perhaps you could take the time to tell us what we should add or change. But more immediately, what does parallel prefix mean? Ans: This came from an MIT thesis. An example would be partial sums - using lexical scanning in parallel to produce all partial sums. A modified form of parallel prefix could be used to compute anything. Wagener: Is REALIGNABLE a required attribute if an array is ever to be realigned? Ans: Yes, otherwise you could build incorrect programs. The attribute is needed on both sides of a call. Without interprocedural analysis, incorrect programs may result. --- I understand INDEPENDENT is a directive before a loop. Has that been adopted? Ans: The first reading of that proposal was at the last HPFF meeting. It has not passed yet, but the majority wanted it so it will be in the proposal. --- One should not think of these as loops; it is a disservice to the community to call these loops because the directive changes a loop into a dramatically different animal. I consider it poor language design. Is it still being discussed? Ans: Yes, it is being discussed. I am opposed. Some want loops with procedure calls in them because they have already been implemented. I am personally concerned about that; it leads to a major source of nondeterminism. You can 14 send comments to Chuck Koelbel or another member of the committee. --- I would like to consider the desirability or possibility of more effective teamwork between your group and ours. This group is responsible for Fortran-related standards and your group is doing one. It is pioneering work that is not appropriate for a standards organization, but it would be beneficial to the entire Fortran community for us to work together on some informal basis. Ans: I am here. Some X3J3 members and alternates are active in HPFF. We are open to other things. --- There would be more of us participating if we had the time. Could you tell us what is critical - what is needed by a certain date? Ans: How many of you are on our email nets? [Many hands] Moss: How many read it? [Fewer hands] Ans: We would be happy to have any kind of communication that works. We are attempting to progress rapidly. --- We have an official interaction with X3H5 where our review of their work is binding. One thing we could do is review the HPF proposal. Ans: You could get it in postscript form through anonymous FTP. We need quick feedback. We did not originally intend to submit our proposals to real standards bodies. Moss: Another method would be to arrive at important issues and take straw polls. Ask us what we think. Our next meeting is in November. Ans: That might be useful. --- You could put the directives paper in our distribution. Our advice may be of help. Ans: Absolutely. If we could set it up so we could just take away the comment part; that would make sense. Martin, B. I endorse Weaver's comments. What will happen with your proposal eventually? Ans: It will be published in some form that could be the starting point for real standardization. --- Could it be submitted as an ANSI or ISO document of some sort? Perhaps a technical report. Lahey I suggest you use SIGPLAN. I would like to invite you to our February 1993 meeting in Ft. Lauderdale. Ans: Sounds great. Someone could come, perhaps Dave Loveman or someone else. Weaver: What do HPF directives look like? 15 Ans: !HPF$ or CHPF$ --- Must that be the initial item on a line? Ans: Yes. Hoffert: There is an ambiguity with the REALIGNABLE keyword when fixed form (with insignificant blanks) is used. Wagener: I understand you plan to have a final draft in December. Could there be an unapproved preliminary draft in late October? We could review that. Ans: I hope to do that. We will make an effort to get a document out and review any feedback which you can send to HPF members. --- We have a two week rule. Our meeting is November 9-13 so we would need for the document to be available via email by October 22 or 23 (approximately 2 and 1/2 weeks before the meeting. Ans: We will have something. It may not reflect all decisions. I will commit to having something - not necessarily the final document. Motion: (Weaver/B. Martin) I move that our Chair draft a letter to the HPF committee, noting their expertise, and suggesting that they point out any changes to Fortran 90 that would be of benefit to all. The letter should outline our schedule and suggest the latest date when responses from HPF would be most useful. An agenda item should then be added to the following X3J3 meeting to follow up on any suggestions. Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Chair: I will draft a letter and put it on the table at this meeting if it is done in time. Excellent idea! 3.4 Appointment of the X3J3 Representative to the WG5 Management Committee Wagener: I appoint Maureen Hoffert to be our representative. 3.5 Interpretations Procedures Discussion Leader: Andrew Tait Scribe: David Philimore References: X3J3/92-121 (Minutes of meeting #121) 92.27 (Wagener. Interim Interpretation Procedures) Discussion: Tait: There seems to be uncertainty in X3J3 on the processing of interpretations. Each interpretation will require a roll call vote. We should continue to add items to the S20 - if X3J3 preferred, we could use a straw vote. But there will be a roll call vote at the next 16 meeting before items are forwarded to WG5. This is an ambitious, but possible, schedule. Leonard: Favors a two stage process, in more detail: the roll call vote is good, but the first stage should be a formal vote, not a straw vote, then we should roll call for final approval. There was a suggestion of adding items if there are no objections - there should be no doubt of X3J3's formal approval. Straw votes are informal. Wagener: A letter ballot is an alternative to the roll call vote. Leonard: There have been observations that it is difficult to turn interpretations around in one meeting. X3J3 should balance speed and accuracy - a turnaround in two meeting seems adequate. People waiting for the answer can in general proceed on the basis of informal assessment and approval by X3J3. Moss: Some form of two stage process seems desirable. Would be happy to accept Tait's proposal. The status field entries in S20 need to be expanded to reflect the stage of the process. What is the status of email? It seems valuable:- the result of an interpretation has often gelled there. The email compendium gathered by Tait is useful background material, but we should be tracking formal interpretation requests and not items in email which might be construed as requests. We don't have time to track email. It seems that 99% of the potential interpretation requests on email have been turned into formal requests. The email tracking is slowing down processing of formal requests. Request that only formal requests be tracked. Meissner: Agrees with Moss. My email requests were just requests for information and not for interpretation. Seconds letter ballot procedure. There is not always an overlap of attendance at meetings - a letter ballot may give more consistent responses - individuals are not always up to speed on a topic at a given meeting. Bierman: X3J3 started by doing interpretations on the standard - it's possible to read the language in the WG5 documents such that we may do corrections to the standard in order to produce corrigenda. For example my vote on the interpretation on the permissibility of printing a negative zero depends on whether we 17 are producing interpretations or corrections. (i.e, Yes, if an interpretation - the standard does say that. No, if a correction - I think it is a mistake not to be able to print -0.0). The intent of X3J3 sometimes changed; that is why we are revisiting many of these issues. Lahey: Don't know if it was the intent of X3J3 to allow negative zeroes, sometimes seems the intent changes. Would like to know how the interpretation processing stands & propose a motion that Tait should provide a summary of the processing at the start and end of each meeting. Motion: (Lahey/O'Gara) An inventory of interpretations should be provided at the start and at the end of each meeting. Discussion on the motion: Moss: Does Tait think this is difficult to provide? Tait: It should be easy. 92.121 says there were 69 open issues - 18 more have just been added. There are a few from WG5 to be added. Action: Motion passed by a vote of (21-0) Discussion (continued): B Martin: Seconds the idea that email is useful, but not the final submission. X3J3 can't consider each item of email. It seems the input procedures for X3J3 to consider an interpretation need to be better - when do informal requests become formal requests, for instance. Hirchert: PROC subgroup has certainly wasted time chasing about 6 phantom issues in email. Moss: To answer B Martin. The WG5 procedures (assuming we are publishing a corrigendum), that is the ISO rules, want a Defect Management document and index. The procedures say that any member of WG5 (or its editing body X3J3) can register a request for interpretation by sending it to the defect document editor. i,e, we send something to Tait. This could be applied to the public as well. J Martin: We don't need a motion to decide on the form. the Defect document editor (Tait) stipulates what may be required of a request. Meissner: A formal request should have a particular form. Tait: Formal mechanisms exist one can write to the Chair, to the Defect document editor (me), to X3. If not in the US, then the ISO form L14 can be used. The procedures are explicit. 18 This is all fine - if we were restricted to these rules there would be little work to do. There is much dispute in email a consensus is often reached after several weeks and no formal request gets into the S20. Believes it is important that this consensus and discussion gets into the S20 so those that don't have email can see the discussion. We should not ignore this, to do a good job, however if X3J3 wants to ignore the email, then will do what X3J3 wants. Steidel: There are ways to get a formal request from email, and the discussion and do Tait's good job. Interpretations have changed because of email discussion - what is discussed in email needs to be carried forward, perhaps by subgroup, to bring the information out. Few can disagree with the formal papers. Tait: Subgroups can look through the email and decide if work is to be done. We don't have to interpret and respond to everything. Leonard: Tait did a good job with the email compendium - it is all useful input. Email is the only way to get to the public, but if someone requires an official response, then they must submit a formal request. Standards are not easy reading, and often need a lot of effort. Much of the public review comment was a question that could be answered by the standard's text. Responses can be of the form - 'Yes, it does say that'. If we track all email we will get bogged down - synopsis of email discussions would be useful. Moss: Responding to Tait. I'm not advocating that email should be ignored - there is a responsibility there. Each X3J3 member is individually responsible for paying attention. We must get to issues raised by formal requests - will probably miss some on email, but we we have limited resources. Weaver: Email provides a useful view of X3J3 - others may best be served by registering as observers. They will get X3J3 mail then. Maine: Agrees with Tait. Don't ignore email - there is a responsibility to monitor email. A formal request could be submitted by email, or issues on email which merit interpretation should be written up as a formal requests for interpretation. Ignoring them is avoiding responsibility, but we don't need the mass of email. Meissner: It's unusual for X3J3 to be in this mode - there is a lull in the workload, there is no 19 future work yet - so that it can spend an entire meeting processing interpretations. Undecided on suggestion that subgroups chase around correlating and tracking email. There seems to be other work e.g, WG5 comments formally on NULLIFY statement, and it doesn't seem to be listed in the open issues and can't be responded to until X3J3 considers it. Bierman: Who distils the email? Subgroup, plenary committee? Who will ask folks answering questions to form them more tightly, or if they are happy with the response? We can formulate answers to these questions. Oglesby: Seconds Bierman's comments. Mattoon: Email answers can be long and confusing - one person may disagree with one detail of the answer while agreeing with the rest. Perhaps the email originator who disagrees with a detail of a point by point response should submit a formal request. Tait: It seems X3J3 doesn't want the all of the email compendium and that individuals on X3J3 will submit formal requests distilled from email. Wagener: Hearing several arguments we have had before - similar to the the interim procedures suggested in 92-027. It seems X3J3 has come to a consensus which is not dissimilar. Moss: How do subgroups proceed for this meeting? Wagener: Subgroups will have to use judgement. Chair's Ruling: The procedures in effect are those specified in 92-027. 3.6 Interpretations Processing - August 5 Discussion Leader: Andrew Tait Weaver: I object to papers being placed on the table which are revisions of papers from the last meeting and which are given numbers from that meeting instead of for this meeting. Do I put these papers with this meeting's papers or last meeting's papers? 3.7 Response to the POSIX Request Discussion Leader: Jerry Wagener References: 92-128 and 92-141 Discussion: [Several edits were suggested. The response will be revised and brought back later.] 3.8 SD-3 for the Next Revision of Fortran Discussion Leader: Jerry Wagener References: 92-142 Wagener: This paper represents the start of our new SD- 3. I am looking for help in creating the entries for this. Bierman: We should find a way to have one corrigenda. 20 Wagener: I believe that we can release an ANSI document which just points to the ISO corrigenda and this will serve as the ANSI corrigenda. Hirchert: Is Fortran 95 an appropriate project title? The ISO project is titled Fortran and we should title ours the same. Moss: The current SD-3 rules describe I-type project as if the US is initiating an international project. We should call the appropriate people to determine if there are any special requirements in our case. In section 5 we should list X3H5, HPF, etc. Weaver: The fact the ISO/IEC SC22/WG5 has delegated the project to X3J3 should be noted. J. Martin: We should note that the project is shared; X3J3 is only doing the development. Wagener: We should note that an ISO project already exists. Leonard: If at all possible, we should get this to SPARC for their next meeting. Lahey: I would like you to quote WG5 resolution V9 in this. B. Martin: We should call the project Fortran 95. We started this trend with FORTRAN 77. Section 5.1 should list the ISO standards and not just the ANSI ones. Lahey: We should put a year in the title, but it should be as accurate as possible. Wagener: I must look into the procedure to determine if we need a letter ballot to forward this to SPARC. 3.9 Compiler Directives Discussion Leader: Dick Weaver References: 92-124 Weaver: It was good to see HPF using this format. Bierman: We should not be doing this - we should be trying to stamp out directives. Maine: I like the idea but I disagree with mucking up the comment syntax. Hoffert: We should look at the work done previously at the implementation symposia. Tait: I disagree with Keith; it is a well established practice for Fortran. Lahey: I would like a special character for column 1 to indicate directives. Weaver: I will send this to David Muxworthy for inclusion in the WG5 bindings document. Bierman: The current approach is inconsistent between implementations and is not portable. 3.10 R&R Document Discussion Leader: Jerry Wagener References: X3J3/S14.122 [This is the first draft of the responses to WG5's Victoria resolutions.] 21 Weaver: The response to V11 should indicate the willingness of Jerry and Jeanne to work together to establish the correct procedures in order to get the job done. [This will come back later in the meeting.] 3.11 Interpretations Processing - August 6 3.11.1 CIO Motion: (Bleikamp/Kelble) Accept 92-074 [unresolved issue 16] Action: motion passed by a vote of (22-2) Discussion: 92-145 is withdrawn and the current version of S20 item 4 stands. Motion: (Bleikamp/Leonard) Accept 92-149 [unresolved issue 17] Straw Vote: The edit in this paper should be amended with text to add a change to section 1.4.1 stating that this is a difference with FORTRAN 77. (19-2-1) Action: amended motion passed by a vote of (20-3) 3.11.2 DATA Motion: (Moss/O'Gara) Accept 92-083a [unresolved issue 19] Action: motion passed by a vote of (18-2) 3.11.3 GEN Motion: (Hendrickson/Lahey) Accept 92-088a [unresolved issues 32 and 33] Action: motion passed by a vote of (24-0) Motion: (Hendrickson/Lahey) Accept 92-147 [unresolved issues 1 and 26] Action: motion passed by a vote of (22-1) after 2 minor edits Motion: (Hendrickson/Lahey) Accept 92-148 Action: motion withdrawn for further edits Motion: (Hendrickson/Lahey) Accept 92-151 [unresolved issue 35] Action: motion passed by a vote of (25-0) after 2 minor edits 3.11.4 PROC Discussion of 92-154: This is a rewrite of S20 item 13. [Several edits were suggested.] Straw Vote: Are you generally in favor of this interpretation? (19-0-6) Discussion of 92-155: This recombines S20 items 7 and 8 into one item which we propose to be called S20 item 7. [Several edits were suggested.] Discussion of 92-157: [This will be voted on tomorrow.] Motion: (Hirchert/Hoffert) Accept 92-157 [unresolved issue 30] Action: motion passed by a vote of (22-0) with minor edits. Motion: (Hirchert/Maine) Accept 92-158 [unresolved issue 116] Action: motion passed by a vote of (19-3) with minor edits. 22 Motion: (Hirchert/Hoffert) Accept 92-159 [unresolved issue 20] Discussion: [There were several objections to passing this for the reason that it really doesn't fix anything.] Action: motion failed by a vote of (9-12). Motion: (Hirchert/Steidel) Accept 92-160 [unresolved issue 31] Action: motion passed by a vote of (23-0) with minor edits. Motion: (Hirchert/Maine) Accept 92-161 [unresolved issue 34 Action: motion passed by a vote of (23-0) with minor edits. Discussion of 92-162: [This will be redone and brought back tomorrow.] 3.12 CLIP Review This item was deferred until the next meeting. 3.13 JOD Report This item was deferred until the next meeting. 3.14 Response to the POSIX Request References: X3J3/92-141a Motion: (O'Gara/Bierman) Accept the X3J3 response to the POSIX report. Action: motion passed by a vote of (19-0) 3.15 Intent to Proceed with the Revision Motion: (Hoffert/Maine): X3J3 wishes to proceed with a 1995-96 revision of the Fortran 90 standard, in conjunction with SC22/WG5 and in accordance with the WG5 strategic plan (WG5/SD-4) and WG5 resolution V13 (July 1992), and instructs the X3J3 Chair to prepare and secure the necessary SD-3 project authorization. Action: motion passed by a vote of (23-0) 3.16 Report on the BSR Meeting [This was a report by Jerry Wagener on his conversation with Lynn Barra.] + Beth Sommerville of ANSI put together the Fortran 90 ballot package and raised the following comment: This looks like a revision of FORTRAN 77 and you can't approve this unless you withdraw the FORTRAN 77 standard. + Fortran 90 was not on the BSR agenda as we had believed. + Fortran 90 is currently undergoing a letter ballot within ANSI which closes on August 28. If there are no negative ballots, it automatically becomes a standard. + X3 letter ballot 2115 on the X3H5 Fortran 90 bindings closes on September 3. + X3H5 is pressuring for email distributions to be considered official. 23 3.17 Interpretations Processing - August 7 3.17.1 CIO Motion: (Bleikamp/Lauson) Accept 92-168 [unresolved issue 36] Action: motion passed by a vote of (17-0) Motion: (Bleikamp/Kelble) Accept 92-169 [unresolved issue 88] Action: motion passed by a vote of (20-0) Motion: (Bleikamp/Lauson) Accept 92-171 [unresolved issue 91] Action: motion passed by a vote of (22-0) comment: unresolved issue 45 fixed by the minor edits paper. 3.17.2 DATA Motion: (Steidel/J. Martin) Accept 92-153a [unresolved issues 29 and 43] Action: motion passed by a vote of (17-2) Motion: (O'Gara/Moss) Accept 92-165 [unresolved issues 89 and 71] Action: motion passed by a vote of (19-2) Motion: (Moss/Steidel) Accept 92-167 [change to S20 item 31] Action: motion withdrawn until later in the day Motion: (Moss/Tait) Accept 92-136 [WG5 N815-3 - change to S20 item 27] straw: accept as is? (1-20-3) straw: permit or prohibit zero-sized arrays in the associated function? (13-1-9) straw: Choice 1: zero-sized arrays are always associated Choice 2: zero-sized arrays are never associated Choice 3: some other solution Choice 4: undecided vote: (1-1-21-2) Action: motion withdrawn comment: 92-136 [WG5 N815-8 - unresolved issue 118] will not be brought to the committee Motion: (Moss/J. Martin) Accept 92-136 [WG5 N815-9 - unresolved issues 119 and 121]] Action: motion failed by a vote of (9-11) straw: should this go back to the subgroup for reconsiderations or should we consider this item settled? (4-16-2) Motion: (O'Gara/J. Martin) Accept 92-172 [change to S20 items 12 and 23 - unresolved issues 7 and 9] Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Motion: (Moss/O'Gara) Accept 92-167a [change to S20 item 31] Weaver: This item shouldn't be passed at this meeting as we haven't had adequate time to review it. straw: Do agree with the sense of 92-167a? (21-0-3) 3.17.3 GEN Motion: (Weaver/Lahey) Accept 92-148a 24 Action: motion passed as amended by unanimous consent Motion: (Weaver/Lahey) Accept 92-164 first set of edits Action: motion passed by a vote of (17-4) Motion: (Weaver/Lahey) Accept 92-164 second set of edits Action: motion withdrawn Motion: (Weaver/Lahey) Accept 92-176 Action: motion passed as amended by unanimous consent 3.17.4 PROC comment: Unresolved issues 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110 are all comments on S20 items and have either been addressed by other items or have been rejected by the subgroup. comment: 92-166 is information for the S20 editor. Motion: (Hirchert/Bierman) Accept 92-154a [revision of S20 item 13 - unresolved issue 24] Action: motion passed as amended by a vote of (20-1) Motion: (Hirchert/Hoffert) Accept 92-155a [unresolved issue 22] Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Motion: (Hirchert/Ellis) Accept 92-156a [unresolved issue 21] Action: motion passed by a vote of (20-3) Motion: (Hirchert/Hoffert) Accept 92-162a [unresolved issue 95] Action: motion passed as amended by unanimous consent Motion: (Hirchert/Ellis) Accept 92-170 [unresolved issue 4] Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Motion: (Hirchert/Ellis) Accept 92-174 [combines S20 items 38, 39, and 40] Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Motion: (Hirchert/Ellis) Accept 92-173 [unresolved issue 100] Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Motion: (J. Martin/Weaver) Accept 92-152 [except for item 255/42] Action: motion passed by unanimous consent comment: Item 255/42 will be handled at the next meeting. 3.17.5 Interpretations Summary Tait: We started the meeting with 69 unresolved issues. During the meeting, 52 were added and 67 to 70 were closed. This leaves us with 51 to 54 unresolved issues. 3.18 X3J3 SD-1 Replacement Wagener: 92-177 is a start. I will submit a paper for the next meeting. 3.19 R & R Document S14.122 Motion: (Hoffert/Tait) Accept responses to WG5 resolutions in S14.122 Motion: (Ellis/Maine) Amend to delete references to V10 Action: Accepted. 25 Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Motion: (Weaver/Moss) Delete X3J3 Resolution 92-01 Motion: (Kelble/Philips) Amend to keep the motion but change "WG5" to "WG5 Management Committee" Action: withdrawn Action: motion passed by unanimous consent Motion: (Weaver/Ellis) Delete X3J3 Resolution 92-02 Action: motion passed by a vote of (19-1) 4 Closing Business 4.1 Comments from Members Weaver: I would like to thank Andrew Tait for his work on S20. Weaver: The night before the last day should be reserved as a work night and not used for other activities. Weaver: The position of secretary should be filled or it should begin rotating. 4.2 Membership Report Hoffert: We have lost 2 members (Rich Ragan and Rick Swift) as they did not attend this meeting. This leaves us with 31 members none of whom are in jeopardy of losing their membership. 4.3 Treasurer's Report Discussion Leader: Mallory North Motion: (Lahey/Moss) Excuse John Reid from paying the meeting fee. Action: motion passed by unanimous consent North: 31 attendees should have paid the fee. At this point 30 have paid. Lahey: Lahey Computer Systems would be willing to bond Jerry and Mallory instead of X3J3 paying the bonding fees. Weaver: The meeting fee should be raised. straw: Raise the meeting fee to $90 from $80 (18-2) Motion: (North/Lahey) Change the meeting fee to $100 Motion: (Moss/Ellis) Amend the motion to raise the fee to $90 Action: motion failed by a vote of (4-11) Action: motion passed by a vote of (15-4) 4.4 Adjournment Wagener: I would like to thank Jose and Microsoft for hosting the meeting. 5 Document Lists 5.1 Current Standing Documents X3J3/S8.118 Fortran 8X, April 1991. X3J3/S14.122.....Annual ISO/TC97/SC22/WG5 resolutions and X3J3 resulting actions. X3J3/S15.121......Summary of X3J3 membership policies and procedures (to appear). The latest draft is document 108- 10 (X3J3/222, p. 27) 26 X3J3/S17 Journal of Development. The first version is Appendix F of S8.104, June 1987. X3J3/S20.122...........Approved and Draft Interpretations 5.2 1992 Document Register Item Page Number Number X3J3/92-000 Hoffert/MBSH-0/Register of Documents........0 X3J3/92-001 Adams/JCA-1/30-Day Letter Ballot on Boeing NO............................................1 X3J3/92-002 Adams/JCA-2/SD-7, Meeting Schedule and Calendar......................................3 X3J3/92-003 Adams/JCA-3/SD-9, Policy and Guidelines....27 X3J3/92-004 Adams/JCA-4/Boeing Letter Ballot Results..115 X3J3/92-005 Adams/JCA-5/Procedures for Hosting International Mtgs..........................123 X3J3/92-006 Adams/JCA-6/Requirements for Document Register....................................125 X3J3/92-007 Adams/JCA-7/SD-4, Projects Manual.........127 X3J3/92-008 Adams/JCA-8/ANSI Information Publications 219 X3J3/92-009 Moss/LJM-1/Trip Report on 120th Meeting...221 X3J3/92-010 Martin/JTM-1/CLIP Working Draft...........227 X3J3/92-011 Martin/JTM-2/L12 Subgroup Strategic Plan..253 X3J3/92-012 Steidel/JCS-1/Request for Interpretation: END.........................................261 X3J3/92-013 Steidel/JCS-2/Request for Interpretation: END.........................................263 X3J3/92-014 Steidel/JCS-3/Request for Interpretation: END.........................................265 X3J3/92-015 Steidel/JCS-4/Request for Interpretation: Statement Fcn...............................267 X3J3/92-016 Steidel/JCS-5/Request for Interpretation: Interfaces..................................269 X3J3/92-017 Steidel/JCS-6/Request for Interpretation: Generic Int.................................271 X3J3/92-018 Wagener/JLW/MBSH-1/Proposals for Meeting Schedules...................................273 X3J3/92-019 Hoffert/MBSH-1/Attendance Status at End of Meeting 120.................................275 X3J3/92-020 Hoffert/MBSH-2/Proposed Distribution Assignments.................................277 X3J3/92-021 Hoffert/MBSH-3/Proposal for S15 Document Contents....................................279 X3J3/92-022 Cohen/MJC-1/Alternative Answer to Interpretation No.4.........................281 X3J3/92-023 O'Gara/LJO-1/How to Number Documents......283 X3J3/92-024 O'Gara/LJO-2/Duties of the Librarian......285 X3J3/92-025 O'Gara/LJO-3/Interpretation Request.......289 X3J3/92-026 Wagener/JLW-1/Looking to the Future.......291 X3J3/92-027A......Wagener/JLW-2/Interpretation Procedures 327 X3J3/92-028 Wagener/JLW-3/Sample User Survey in the 70's and 80's...............................329 27 X3J3/92-029 Wagener/JLW-4/Letter Ballot on Treasurer..383 X3J3/92-030 Wagener/JLW-5/X3H5 Proposal to Develop a Fortran 90 Bind......................................385 X3J3/92-031A....Wagener/JLW-6/X3J3 Changes to the WG5 L12 Document....................................397 X3J3/92-032 Wagener/JLW-7/X3/SD-1 Update-Fortran Family of Standards.................................401 X3J3/92-033 Reid/JKR-1/Change to S20/13...............411 X3J3/92-034 Reid/JKR-2/Change to S20/29...............413 X3J3/92-035 Reid/JKR-3/Change to S20/32...............415 X3J3/92-036 Reid/JKR-4/Response to 120-42.............417 X3J3/92-037 Reid/JKR-5/Change to S20/21...............419 X3J3/92-038 Reid/JKR-6/Change to S20/22...............421 X3J3/92-039 Reid/JKR-7/Changes to S20/7 and S20/8.....423 X3J3/92-040 Reid/JKR-8/Minor Edits to S20.............427 X3J3/92-041 Tait/ADT-1/Interpretation of "edit descriptor".................................429 X3J3/92-042 Tait/ADT-2/Response to 121-ADT-1..........431 X3J3/92-043 Tait/ADT-3/Proposal for Format and Style of Interprets..................................433 X3J3/92-044 Tait/ADT-4/S20.120A.......................437 X3J3/92-045 Tait/ADT-5/Interpretations & Discussions 7/91 - 9/91.................................471 X3J3/92-046 Tait/ADT-6/Interpretations & Discussions 9/91 - 2/92.................................533 X3J3/92-047 Tait/ADT-7/Interpretations & Discussions 1/92 - 2/92.................................595 X3J3/92-048 Tait/ADT-8/Interpretations & Discussions 2/92 - 4/92.................................619 X3J3/92-049 Tait/ADT-9/Griffiths Comments on the S20.120.....................................683 X3J3/92-050 Tait/ADT-10/Comments on the S20.120.......699 X3J3/92-051 Tait/Interpretations & Disc email Apr & May, 1992-1.................................703 X3J3/92-052 Tait/Interpretations & Disc email Apr & May, 1992-2.................................725 X3J3/92-053 Feaux/Meeting Arrangements for 122........737 X3J3/92-054 Martin/Internat'l Handling of Interp......739 X3J3/92-055 Martin/WG5 Convenor's Report..............741 X3J3/92-056 Rolison/Request for Interp: ALLOCATE......743 X3J3/92-057 Rolison/Proposed Correction...............745 X3J3/92-058 Rolison/Request for Interp: Optional Args 747 X3J3/92-059 Rolison/Request for Interp: TRANSFER......749 X3J3/92-060 Rolison/Request for Interp: KIND=.........751 X3J3/92-061 Tait/Interpretations & S20120A............753 X3J3/92-062A.................Tait/New Requests for Interp 759 X3J3/92-063 Tait/New Interp...........................761 X3J3/92-064 Tait/Unresolved Issues....................763 X3J3/92-065 Weaver/Format & Style of Interp...........771 X3J3/92-066 Martin/Working Draft - Varying Character..773 28 X3J3/92-067 Wagener/Report to SPARC, April, 1992......841 X3J3/92-068 Hoffert/X3 Register of Documents Requirement.................................851 X3J3/92-069 Martin/Response to 92-056.................853 X3J3/92-070 Steidel/Response to 92-064, #38...........855 X3J3/92-071 Bleikamp/Response to 118-ADT-2, 92-044....857 X3J3/92-072 Bleikamp/Response to 119-JTM-2, 92-044....859 X3J3/92-073 Bleikamp/Response to 119-JTM-3, 92-044....861 X3J3/92-074 Bleikamp/Response to 92-045...............863 X3J3/92-075 Bleikamp/Response to 92-047...............865 X3J3/92-076 Feaux/Straw Vote on G Edit Descriptors....867 X3J3/92-077 Bierman/Proposed Interp 17................869 X3J3/92-078 Unused X3J3/92-079 Shepherd/Edits to Interp 25...............871 X3J3/92-080A...............PROC/Modification of Interp 21 873 X3J3/92-081 Martin/Schedule from Earlier Version of L12.........................................875 X3J3/92-082 Martin/WG5 L12 Subcommittee Status Report 877 X3J3/92-083A.....................Maine/Response to 92-051 879 X3J3/92-084 Maine/ Response to 92-060.................881 X3J3/92-085 Maine/Scribe Notes on X3H5 Talk...........883 X3J3/92-086 Rolision/Request for Interp: I/O Implied DO..........................................887 X3J3/92-087 Maine/Request for Interp: List-directed...889 X3J3/92-088B...........Weaver/Draft Interp: END Statement 891 X3J3/92-089 Rolison/Comments on X3J3/S20120...........893 X3J3/92-090 Himer/Interp for 92-057...................897 X3J3/92-091 Himer/Interp for 92-059...................899 X3J3/92-092A..............Steidel/Response to 92-064, #47 901 X3J3/92-093A..............Steidel/Response to 92-061, #27 903 X3J3/92-094 Himer/Response to 92-058..................905 X3J3/92-095 Hirchert/Interp #7 and #8.................907 X3J3/92-096 Shepherd/Changes to Interp 32.............909 X3J3/92-097 PROC/Corrections to Interp 22.............913 X3J3/92-098 AD-HOC/Electronic Distribution Roadmap....913 X3J3/92-099 PROC/Changes to Interp 9..................915 X3J3/92-100 PROC/Changes to Interp 10.................917 X3J3/92-101A......................PROC/Response to 92-045 919 X3J3/92-102A................Shepherd/Changes to Interp 13 921 X3J3/92-103 Himer/Modify Interp 23 for 92-040.........923 X3J3/92-104 GEN/RFI: Equivalence of Expression Evaluation..................................925 X3J3/92-105 GEN/RFI: Valid Characters in Fixed Format 927 X3J3/92-106 GEN/RFI: Class of Defined Operator........929 29 X3J3/92-107 GEN/RFI: Automatic Data Objects in Init Expr........................................931 X3J3/92-108 Maine/REsponse to 92-045..................933 X3J3/92-109A....................Martin/Response to 92-051 935 X3J3/92-110 Wagener/X3H5 Letter.......................939 X3J3/92-111 Steidel/Status of Data Subgroup Items.....941 X3J3/92-112 Phillimore/Revisions to Interp 31.........943 X3J3/92-113 Phillimore/Response to 92-065, #13........947 X3J3/92-114 Himer/Monday Humor Email..................949 X3J3/92-115A.......................CIO/Response to 92-041 951 X3J3/92-116A.......................CIO/Response to 92-087 953 X3J3/92-117 CIO/Status of CIO Subgroup Items..........955 X3J3/92-118 CIO/G Edit Descriptor.....................957 X3J3/92-119 PROC/Resolving Generic Procedure References..................................959 X3J3/92-120 PROC/Response to 92-015...................961 CT22/92-096 Weaver/ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22 Standards Interp 963 X3J3/92-121 Phillimore/Replacement for interp #31.....971 X3J3/92-122 Phillimore/Draft Response to 92-064, item #13.........................................975 X3J3/92-123 Tait/Defect Management: Unresolved Issues 977 X3J3/92-124 Weaver/Compiler Directives................981 X3J3/92-125 Weaver/Action Items.......................983 X3J3/92-126 Rolison/Request for Interp................985 X3J3/92-127 Rolison/Comments on S20...................987 X3J3/92-128 Wagener/POSIX Request for F90 Binding.....991 X3J3/92-129 Shepherd/RFI: SEQUENCE Derived Type.......993 X3J3/92-130 Shepherd/RFI: Derived Type Function.......995 X3J3/92-131 Steidel/Notes and Comments on S20.121.....997 X3J3/92-132 Tait/Interp e-mail, June-July, 1992......1041 X3J3/92-133 Wagener/Index to Selected X3 Documents...1099 X3J3/92-134 Lahey/RFI: WHERE Statement...............1101 X3J3/92-135 Martin/WG5 Report........................1103 X3J3/92-136 Tait/Interpretations N815-1..............1131 X3J3/92-137 Tait/Minor Edits and Corrections for S20 1141 X3J3/92-138 Tait/RFI: UBOUND and Generic Intrinsic Functions..................................1143 X3J3/92-139 Tait/Review of S20.......................1145 X3J3/92-140 Tait/N808 Response.......................1151 X3J3/92-141A............Wagener/Response to POSIX Request 1153 X3J3/92-142 Wagener/Draft SD3 for an I Project.......1155 X3J3/92-143 Tait/Defect Management: Unresolved Issues (2)........................................1157 X3J3/92-144 Tait/Subgroup Ownership of S20 Entries...1159 X3J3/92-145 Bleikamp/Blanks in Format Spec in Free Form.......................................1161 X3J3/92-146 Kennedy/HPF Slideset for F90 Binding.....1163 30 X3J3/92-147A...Hendrickson/RFI: Equivalence of Expression Eval.......................................1177 X3J3/92-148A......Hendrickson/RFI: Defined Operator Names 1179 X3J3/92-149A...................Bleikamp/G Edit Descriptor 1183 X3J3/92-150 Tait/Defect Management: Unresolved Issues (3)........................................1185 X3J3/92-151A...........GEN/On Ambiguous Generic Procedure Reference..................................1187 X3J3/92-152A..............Wagener/Editorial Entry for S20 1189 X3J3/92-153A...........Steidel/Response to 92-61, Item 13 1191 X3J3/92-154B..........PROC/Response to 120-LRR-3 (120-28) 1195 X3J3/92-155A.........................PROC/Draft Interp #7 1197 X3J3/92-156A................PROC/Draft Interp from 92-094 1199 X3J3/92-157 PROC/Resolving Generic Procedure References.................................1201 X3J3/92-158A........PROC/Draft Interp from N815-5 Binding 1203 X3J3/92-159 PROC/Draft Interp 92-059.................1205 X3J3/92-160A..........PROC/Statement Function Constraints 1207 X3J3/92-161A......................PROC/Response to 92-016 1209 X3J3/92-162B........Bleikamp/Prohibition against Multiple Interfaces.................................1211 X3J3/92-163 CIO/Unresolved Issue #102 for S20........1213 X3J3/92-164A........Weaver/Keywords and Argument Keywords 1215 X3J3/92-165A....................O'Gara/Response to 92-129 1217 X3J3/92-166 PROC/Minor Edits to S20121...............1219 X3J3/92-167A........Phillimore/Replacement for Interp #31 1221 X3J3/92-168 PROC/Statement Function Arguments........1225 X3J3/92-169 CIO/Unresolved Issue #38.................1227 X3J3/92-170A...................PROC/Modification to S2006 1229 X3J3/92-171 CIO/Spacing Result for 00................1231 X3J3/92-172 O'Gara/Revision of S2012 and S2023.......1233 X3J3/92-173A........Shepherd/Declaration of FUNCTION Type 1235 X3J3/92-174 PROC/S20: Items 38-40....................1237 X3J3/92-175 Unused X3J3/92-176 GEN/Blanks in Format Specifications......1239 X3J3/92-177 Shepherd/Discussion of Interp 32.........1241 X3J3/92-178 Wagener/Fortran Family of Standards......1245 X3J3/S14.122A.......X3J3 Resolutions and Responses to WG5 Resolutions................................1247 31 5.3 1992 Documents By Meeting 5.3.1 Meeting 121 Documents The documents for meeting 121 are X3J3/92-000 through X3J3/92-120. 5.3.2 Meeting 122 Documents The documents for meeting 122 are X3J3/92-121 through X3J3/92-178. In addition, revisions of documents X3J3/92-027,083, and 088 were distributed. 6 Committee Organization 6.1 Officers Chair Jerrold Wagener Vice Chair Maureen Hoffert International Rep. Ivor Philips Secretary to be appointed Librarian Linda O'Gara Editor Walter Brainerd Defect Management Andrew Tait Vocabulary Rep. Kurt Hirchert 6.2 Liaison Assignments Data Interchange, X3T2 Presley Smith Database, X3H2 Presley Smith IEEE POSIX, Fortran binding to be appointed BSI Fortran Group Miles Ellis Parallel Processing, X3H5 Jon Steidel 6.3 Subgroups GEN (General Concepts) Hendrickson (head), Lahey, Lauer, Marusak, Philips, Swift, Weaver, Whitlock DATA (Data Concepts) Katz, Martin, Meissner, Millard, Moss, O'Gara, Ragan, Rolison, Steele CIO (Control Constructs and Input/Output) Brainerd, Kelble, Lauson, Leonard, Mattoon, Oglesby, Smith PROC (Procedures and Program Units) Bierman, Ellis, Himer, Hirchert (head), Hoffert, McConnell, North JOD (Journal of Development) Bierman (head), Hoffert, Meissner, Millard The subgroup organization is under review and will likely change in the near future to a more effective structure for developing the 1995-96 revision. 7 Future Meetings and Distribution Assignments Four Meeting Schedule for 1993: Meeting conventions: + 4 meetings per year + attempt to schedule second full week of month + attempt to schedule meetings back to back with WG5 meetings 123 Nov. 9-13, 1992 - New Haven, CT (Lauer, host) pre-meeting distribution deadline: October 5, 1992 pre-meeting distribution: Weaver post-meeting distribution: Rolison 32 124 Feb. 8-12, 1993 - Fort Lauderdale, FL (Leonard, host) pre-meeting distribution deadline: pre-meeting distribution: Leonard post-meeting distribution: Hoffert 125 May 10-14, 1993 - University of Illinois (Hirchert, host) pre-meeting distribution deadline: pre-meeting distribution: Tait post-meeting distribution: Katz 126 July 12-16, 1993 - Brussels (Hendrickson, host) (Following the WG5 Meeting, July 5-9 in Bavaria) pre-meeting distribution deadline: pre-meeting distribution: Hirchert post-meeting distribution: Marusak 127 Nov. 8-12, 1993 - Albuquerque, NM (Lauson, host) pre-meeting distribution deadline: pre-meeting distribution: Mattoon post-meeting distribution: Swift 128 February, 1994 - (Bierman, host) pre-meeting distribution deadline: pre-meeting distribution: Bierman post-meeting distribution: Steele 33 8 Membership 8.1 Meeting Attendance X3J3 Meeting Attendance X3J3 Principal Members Meeting # 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Location TX NV OX NM MN NH CA IN WA CT ?? ?? Date 01 04 08 12 04 08 11 05 08 11 ?? ?? 90 90 90 90 91 91 91 92 92 92 93 93 Name Affiliation Bierman, Keith Sun I I I I I V V V V Brainerd, Walt Unicomp P V A Ellis, Miles Oxford V V V A V V V A V Hendrickson, Dick ACRI V V V V V A A** V** V Himer, Jim Esso Canada P V A A V** V A Hirchert, Kurt Univ. Illinois V V A A V V V V V Hoffert, Maureen HP V V V V V V V V V Katz, Henry DOD V V A A V V V V V Kelble, Rich Unisys I I I A I V V A V Lahey, Tom Lahey V V V A V V V V V Lauer, Rochelle DECUS* V V R V V V V A R Lauson, Herrick V V V Leonard, Bill Harris V V A A V R A R V Martin, Jeanne Livermore V V V V V V V V V Marusak, Alex Los Alamos V V V V V V A V V Mattoon, David Assoc. RR P V A A V V A V V Maine, Richard NASA P V V Meissner, Loren USF V A A V V R V A V Millard, Geoff Edinburgh R V R A A V V A V Moss, Len SLAC V V A A V V V A V North, Mallory RHI V V A V A V V V V O'Gara, Linda SSI V V V V V V V A V Oglesby, Jose Microsoft I I A A I V R R V Philips, Ivor Boeing V V V V V A V V V Ragan, Rich CDC V R A R R A V A** A*** Rolison, Larry Cray* I I I I I I R R R Smith, Presley CONVEX V R A A R R A R R Steele, Guy Think Mach.* A A R R A A R** R R Swift, Rick MasPar P V A V A** A*** 34 Tait, Andrew Amdahl V V V V V A V V V Wagener, Jerry Amoco V V V V V V V V V Weaver, Dick IBM* V V V V V A R V V Whitlock, Stan DEC A V V V V V V V A V present and voting Alternates Representing R absent but representedprincipals at meeting: A absent and not represented P present but not voting David Philimore, Thinking I institution represented * institutional member Joel Rose, DECUS ** missed 2 of last 3 meetings *** LOST membership Research Total Membership: 31 Visitors at Meeting: Bruce Martin, Loren Lost Members: Meissner's alternate Ragan, Rich (CDC) Al Mong, Ivor Philips' Swift, Rick (MasPar)alternate Aurelio Pollicini, WG5 John Reid, WG5 Janice Shepherd, Dick Weaver's alternate 35 8.2 X3J3 Principal Members Keith H. Bierman SMI 1532 Norman Ave. San Jose CA 95125 phone: (415) 336-2648 email: keith.bierman@eng.sun.com fax: (415) 968-6396 alternate: Michael Ingrassia Walter S. Brainerd Unicomp 235 Mt. Hamilton Ave. Los Altos CA 94022 phone: (415) 949-4052 email: walt@netcom.com fax: (415) 949-4058 T. Miles R. Ellis Computing Teaching Centre Oxford University 59 George Street Oxford OX1 2BH ENGLAND phone: 011 44 865 278800 email: ctcmiles@uk.ac.oxford.vax fax: 011 44 865 278834 alternate: John D. Wilson BSI Fortran Panel BCS Fortran Specialist Gr Richard A. Hendrickson ACSET Ave. Albert Einstein 4 B-1348-Louvain-la-Neuve 36 BELGIUM phone: 011 32 10 470 833 email: hendrick@acset.be fax: 011 32 10 470 899 alternate: Karen Spackman James T. Himer Esso Resources Division/Exxon 339 Woodside Bay S.W. Calgary Alberta T2W 3K9 CANADA phone: (403) 237-4215 email: jthimer@iras.ucalgary.ca fax: (403) 237-2907 (room 1641) fax: (403) 232-5730 Kurt W. Hirchert University of Illinois 152 Computing Applications Bldg. 605 East Springfield Avenue Champaign IL 61820 phone: (217) 333-8093 email: hirchert@ncsa.uiuc.edu fax: (217) 244-2909 alternate: Murray F. Freeman Maureen Hoffert Hewlett-Packard Company 3404 E. Harmony Road Fort Collins CO 80525-9599 phone: (303) 229-2774 email: mbsh@fc.hp.com fax: (303) 229-6409 alternate: Alan Meyer Henry Katz 8250 Brattle Road 37 Baltimore MD 21208 phone: (410) 859-6324 email: bitnet katz@umbc2 fax: (410) 455-3969 38 Richard P. Kelble Unisys Corporation 2476 Swedesford Road P. O. Box 203 Paoli PA 19301 phone: (215) 648-4009 email: kelble@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com Tom Lahey Lahey Computer Systems Inc. 865 Tahoe Blvd Suite 204 P. O. Box 6091 Incline Village NV 89450-6091 phone: (702) 831-2500 email: uucp uunet!lahey!tom1 Rochelle Lauer Director Yale University High Energy Computing Facility 512 Gibbs Physics Laboratory 260 Whitney Avenue P. O. Box 6666 New Haven CT 06511-8167 phone: (203) 432-3366 email: bitnet lauer @ yalehep fax: (203) 432-3824 alternate: Jeol Rose instititutional member (DECUS) Herrick S. Lauson 7711 Euclid Ave. N.E. Albuquerque NM 87110-4803 phone: (505) 298-2769 email: lauson@unmvax.cs.unm.edu alternate: Brian Smith 39 William Leonard Harris Computer Systems Division 2101 W. Cypress Creek Road Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309 phone: (305) 973-5130 email: bill@ssd.csd.harris.com email: uucp uunet!hcx1!bill fax: (305) 977-5580 alternate: Doug Scofield Richard Maine NASA Dryden M/S D-1021 P.O. Box 273 Edwards CA 93523 phone: (805) 258-3316 email: maine@altair.dfrf.nasa.gov fax: (805) 258-3567 Jeanne T. Martin Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. 7000 East Avenue P. O. Box 808 L-300 Livermore CA 94550 phone: (510) 422-3753 email: jtm@llnl.gov fax: (510) 423-6961 alternate: John T. Engle convenor of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 Alex Marusak Los Alamos National Lab Group C-3 MS/B265 P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos NM 87545 40 phone: (505) 667-0122 email: internet alm @ lanl.gov alternate: Tony Warnock DOE Language Working Group 41 David Mattoon Assoc. of American Railroads 3140 South Federal Street Chicago IL 60616 phone: (312) 808-5868 phone: (708) 234-2014 email: David Mattoon at CTC@relay.proteon.com fax: (312) 808-5425 Loren P. Meissner University of San Francisco 2 Kerr Avenue Kensington CA 94707 phone: (415) 524-5227 phone: (415) 666-6328 (USF) email: meissner@lynx.cs.usfca.edu alternate: Bruce Martin G. E. Millard E.P.C.L. 17 Alva Street Edinburgh EH2 4PH SCOTLAND phone: 011 44 31 225 6262 email: geoff@epc.ed.ac.uk fax: 011 44 31 225 6644 alternate: Graham Barber David T. Muxworthy Leonard J. Moss SLAC 2575 Sand Hill Rd. Menlo Park CA 94025 phone: (415) 926-3370 email: ljm@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu email: bitnet: ljm @ slacvm fax: (415) 926-3329 42 alternate: Sylvia Sund C. Mallory North Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech. 5500 Wabash Ave. Campus Box 145 Terre Haute IN 47803 phone: (812) 877-8216 email: bitnet north @ rhit fax: (812) 877-3198 alternate: Jerry Fine Linda O'Gara Supercomputer Systems Inc. 2021 Las Positas Ct. Suite 101 Livermore CA 94550 phone: (510) 373-8040 email: uunet!ssi!ljo fax: (510) 373-6270 alternate: Dave Segerger X3J3 librarian Jose Oglesby c/o Microsoft One Microsoft Way Redmond WA 98052 phone: (206) 882-8080 email: uunet!microsoft!joseogl fax: (206) 883-8101 alternate: Geoff Shilling Lauren Feaux Ivor R. Philips Boeing Computer Services P. O. Box 24346 MS 7L-21 Seattle WA 98124-3046 43 phone: (206) 865-3522 email: internet philips @ atc.boeing.com fax: (206) 865-2966 alternate: Alvin C. Mong 44 Lawrence R. Rolison Cray Research Inc. 655F Lone Oak Dr. Eagan MN 55121 phone: (612) 683-5807 email: lrr@cray.com fax: (612) 683-5307 alternate: Jon Steidel Joanne Brixius institutional member (Cray Research) Presley Smith CONVEX Computer Corporation 3000 Waterview Parkway P. O. Box 833851 Richardson TX 75083-3851 phone: (214) 497-4545 email: psmith@convex.com fax: (214) 497-4500 alternate: Rich Bleikamp X3H2 (Database) Guy L. Steele Thinking Machines Corp 245 First Street Cambridge MA 02142 phone: (617) 876-1111 email: internet gls @ think.com alternate: David Phillimore institutional member (Thinking Machines) Andrew D. Tait Amdahl Corporation 1250 East Arques Ave. M/S 276 PO Box 3470 Sunnyvale CA 94088-3470 phone: (408) 746-7370 45 email: adt10@uts.amdahl.com fax: (408) 992-2209 Jerrold L. Wagener Amoco Production Research 4502 East 41st Street P. O. Box 3385 Tulsa OK 74102 phone: (918) 660-3978 email: jwagener@trc.amoco.com fax: (918) 660-4165 alternate: Rex L. Page X3J3 vice chair X3H3 (Graphics) Richard Weaver IBM D48/D332 P.O. Box 49023 San Jose CA 95161 phone: (408) 463-2956/3088 email: weaver@stlvm7.vnet.ibm.com fax: (408) 463-3114 alternate: Janice Shepherd institutional member (IBM) Stan Whitlock Digital Equipment Corp. ZK02-3/N30 110 Spit Brook Rd. Nashua NH 03062 phone: (603) 881-2011 email: internet whitlock%tle.dec @ email: decwrl.enet.dec.com fax: (603) 881-0120 alternate: Keith Kimball 46 8.3 X3J3 Alternate Members Graham Barber E.P.C.L. 17 Alva Street Edinburgh SCOTLAND phone: 44 31 225 6262 email: janet gra@epc.ed.ac.uk fax: 44 31 225 6644 alternate: G. E. Millard Richard Bleikamp CONVEX Computer Corporation 3000 Waterview Parkway P. O. Box 833851 Richardson TX 75083-3851 phone: (214) 497-4133 email: bleikamp@convex.com fax: (214) 497-4500 alternate: Presley Smith Joanne Brixius Cray Research Inc. 655F Lone Oak Dr. Eagan MN 55121 phone: (612) 683-5873 email: jbrixius@cray.com alternate: Larry Rolison IEEE POSIX John T. Engle Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. P. O. Box 808 L-300 Livermore CA 94559 47 alternate: Jeanne T. Martin Lauren Feaux c/o Microsoft One Microsoft Way Redmond WA 98052 fax: (206) 883-8101 alternate: Jose Oglesby Jerry Fine Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering 550 Wabash Ave. Terre Haute IN 47803 phone: (812) 877-1511 email: bitnet fine @ rhit fax: (812) 877-3198 alternate: C. M. North Murray F. Freeman Bell Communication Research RRC 4B-721 444 Hoes Lane Piscataway NJ 08854-4182 phone: (201) 699-2272 alternate: Kurt W. Hirchert Michael Ingrassia SunPro 2550 Garcia UMTV 12-40 Mountain View CA 94043 phone: (415) 336-1024 email: michael.ingrassia@eng.sun.com Keith Kimball Digital Equipment Corp. ZK02-3/N30 48 110 Spit Brook Road Nashua NH 03062 phone: (603) 881-.... email: kimball%tle.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com fax: (603) 881-0120 alternate: Stan Whitlock Bruce A. Martin Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider Building 911-C Brookhaven National Laborator Upton NY 11973 phone: (516) 282-5647 email: bam@bnl.gov email: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov alternate: Loren Meissner Alan Meyer Hewlett-Packard Company 3404 E. Harmony Road Fort Collins CO 80525-9599 phone: (303) 229-6883 email: acmeyer@fc.hp.com fax: (303) 229-6409 alternate: Maureen Hoffert Alvin C. Mong Boeing Computer Services P. O. Box 24346 MS 7L-21 Seattle WA 98124-0346 phone: (206) 865-3531 email: mong@espresso.boeing.com alternate: Ivor R. Philips David T. Muxworthy EUCS 49 University Library George Square Edinburgh EH8 9LJ SCOTLAND phone: 011 44 31 650 3305 email: janet d.t.muxworthy @ edinburgh.ac.uk fax: 011 44 31 662 4809 alternate: G. E. Millard Rex L. Page Amoco Production Research P. O. Box 3385 Tulsa OK 74102 phone: (918) 660-3935 alternate: Jerrold L. Wagener David Phillimore Thinking Machines Inc. 245 First Street Cambridge MA 02142 email: internet dphillim @ think.com alternate: Guy Steele Joel S. Rose Computing Center University at Buffalo Buffalo NY 14260 phone: (716) 645-3566 email: acuser@ubvms fax: (716) 645-3734 alternate: Rochelle Lauer 50 Doug Scofield Harris Corporation Computer Systems Div. 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309 phone: (305) 973-5120 email: doug@ssd.csd.harris.com alternate: William Leonard Dave Seberger Supercomputer Systems Inc. 2021 Las Positas Ct Suite 101 Livermore CA 94550 phone: (415) 373-8010 email: uunet!ssi!seberger alternate: Linda O'Gara Janice Shepherd IBM Canada Ltd. 31/123/844/TOR 844 Don Mills Road North York Ontario M3C1V7 CANADA phone: (416) 448-3101 email: janshep@torlab2.vnet.ibm.com fax: (416) 448-6057 alternate: Richard Weaver Geoff Shilling c/o Microsoft One Microsoft Way Redmond WA 98052 phone: (206) 936-7370 fax: (206) 883-8101 alternate: Jose Oglesby 51 Brian T. Smith University of New Mexico Computer Science Dept. 339 Farris Engineering Center Albuquerque NM 87131 phone: (505) 277-5500 phone: (505) 277-3112 (secreta email: phonenet smith @ unmvax.cs.unm.edu fax: (505) 277-0813 alternate: Herrick Lauson ACM/SigNum Parallel Computing Forum Jon Steidel Cray Research Inc. 655F Lone Oak Dr. Eagan MN 55121 phone: (612) 683-5734 email: jls @ cray.com alternate: Larry Rolison Sylvia Sund SLAC Bin 60 P.O. Box 4349 Stanford CA 94309 phone: (415) 926-2277 email: bitnet sunnie @ slacvm alternate: Leonard J. Moss Tony Warnock Los Alamos National Lab. MS B296 C-10 P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos NM 87545 phone: (505) 667-7158 52 alternate: Alex Marusak 53 John D. Wilson Computer Centre University of Leicester Leicester LE1 7RH ENGLAND phone: 011 44 533 522235 email: jdw@leicester.ac.uk alternate: T. Miles R. Ellis 54 8.4 Observers, Liaisons, Consultants, etc. Stephen Adamczyk Edison Design Group 4 Norman Road Upper Montclair NJ 07043 phone: (201) 744-2620 Jeanne C. Adams NCAR Scientific Computing Division P.O. Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 phone: (303) 497-1275 email: internet jeanne @ncar.ucar.edu fax: (303) 497-1137 Thomas Aird IMSL Inc. 2500 Parkwest Tower One 2500 Citywest Blvd. Houston TX 77042 phone: (713) 782-6060 B. Banes Rolls Royce Ltd Eng Comp P.O. Box 3 Filton Bristol BS12 7QE ENGLAND C. Bourstin AFNOR Div. Informatique-Secteur 55 Tertiaire Tour Europe - Cedex 07 F-92080 Paris La Defense FRANCE AFNOR Brian Brode Pacific Sierra Research Corp. 12340 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90025 Thomas W. Bucken Kendall Square Research 170 Tracer Lane Waltham MA 02154 phone: (617) 895-9490 email: tbucken@koas.ksr.com fax: (617) 890-0996 Thomas Gordon Butler Texaco Inc. 4800 Fournace Place Bellaire TX 77401 Bor Chan NERSC Lawrence Livermore National Lab. University of California P.O. Box 5509 L-560 Livermore CA 94550 56 Ingemar Dahlstrand DNA/LTH Box 118 S-22100 Lund SWEDEN email: internet ingo @ dna.lth.se WG5/Sweeden L. M. Delves Dept. of Computer Science and Statistics University of Liverpool Liverpool ENGLAND Charles Dickman General Electric Information Sys. 401 North Washington Street Rockville MD 20850 Stuart I. Feldman Bell Communications Research 435 South Street Morristown NJ 07960 Lloyd Fosdick Dept. of Computer Science University of Colorado Campus Box 430 Boulder CO 80309 Michael J. Frisch 57 Academic Computing Services & Sys. University of Minnesota 128 Lind Hall 207 Church Street Southeast Minneapolis MN 55455 Peter Galloway International Computers Ltd. Arndale House Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3AR ENGLAND email: P.Galloway@qmw.ac.uk L G J ter Haar Am Alten Sportplatz 20 4194 Bedburg-Hau-Hasselt GERMANY phone: (70) 930160 WG5/Netherlands John Hill Unisys Corp. M/S E8-130 P.O. Box 500 Blue Bell PA 19424 phone: (215) 986-4565 Paul Hurtley P.G.R. Computing Dorchester House Station Road Letchworth Herts SG6 3AW ENGLAND phone: 44 462 480-648 58 Kalman Janko CSENGERY 59 - 11 117 Budapest 1067 HUNGARY E. Andrew Johnson Open Software Foundation 11 Cambridge Center Cambridge MA 02142 phone: (617) 621-8794 email: andyj@osf.org fax: (617) 225-2782 59 William Kahan EE & Computer Science Dept. University of California 573 Evans Berkeley CA 94720 Joseph King Genetics Computer Group Inc 575 Science Dr Suite B Madison WI 53711 phone: (608) 231-5200 email: jking@gcg.com fax: (608) 231-5202 Judy Kochanowski Intel Corp. M/S HF2-80 5200 Elam Young Parkway Hillsboro OR 97124 William La Plante Box 2130 Arlington VA 22202 phone: (301) 763-3905 Bruce Leasure Kuck and Associates 1906 Fox Drive Champaigne IL 61820 phone: (217) 356-2288 Neldon H. Marshall 60 EG&G Idaho Inc. 1580 Sawtelle Street M/S 2408 P. O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls ID 83415 phone: (208) 526-9342 email: internet nhm @ inel.gov fax: (208) 526-9591 C. J. Mas IBM France Dept. 2729 Tour Descartes Cedex 50 Paris La Defense FRANCE WG5/France Hiroshi Matsuo Software Works Hitachi Ltd. 5030 Totsuka-cho Totsuka-ku Yokohama-shi 244 JAPAN phone: 011 81 45 824-2311 fax: 011 81 45 824-9092 WG5/Japan Keith McConnell 106 Apple Street Tinton Falls NJ 07724 phone: (201) 758-7000 61 Michael Metcalf DD Cern 1211 Geneva 23 SWITZERLAND phone: 011 41 22 767 4427 phone: 011 41 22 794 4755 email: bitnet metcalf @ cernvm.cern.ch fax: 011 41 22 767 7155 Meinolf Munchhausen D ST SP314 Seimens Ag D-8000 Munchen 83 GERMANY EWICS David Padua Center for Supercomputer Research University of Illinois 305 Talbot Lab Urbana IL 61801 George Paul IBM Research Division T.J. Watson Research Center P. O. Box 704 Yorktown Heights NY 10598 phone: (914) 789-7750 phone: (914) 769-0984 (home) email: bitnet: GP1 @ yktvmh email: csnet: GP1 @ ibm.com 62 Aurelio Pollicini CEC JRC Ispra I-21020 Ispra ITALY WG5/Italy Richard R. Ragan Control Data Corp. 5101 Patrick Henry Dr. Santa Clara CA 95054 phone: (408) 496-4340 email: rrr@svl.cdc.com fax: (408) 496-4106 M. Rannou AFNOR Tour Europe - CEDEX 07 F-92080 Paris La Defense FRANCE phone: (617) 895-9490 email: tbucken@koas.ksr.com fax: (617) 890-0996 John K. Reid Atlas Centre Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Oxon OX11 0QX ENGLAND phone: 011 44 235 44 6493 email: jkr@ib.rl.ac.uk fax: 011 44 235 44 5808 William C. Rinehuls Chairman SPARC 8457 Rushing Creek Court Springfield 63 VA 22153 SPARC Keith D. Roberts British Petroleum Res. Ctr. Chertsey Road Sunbury-on-Thames Middlesex TW16 7LN ENGLAND 64 Mike Ross Metaware Inc. 2161 Delaware Ave. Santa Cruz CA 95060 K. H. Rotthauser GMD Schloss Birlinghoven D-5205 St. Augustin 1 GERMANY WG5/Germany Lindsey Savage University of Manchester Manchester Computer Centre Oxford Road Computer Building Manchester M13 9PL UNITED KINGDOM J. L. Schonfelder Director Computer Laboratory University of Liverpool P.O. Box 147 Liverpool L69 3BX ENGLAND phone: 011 44 (51) 794-3716 email: janet jls@liverpool.ac.uk Jurgen Schonhut c/o FhG-AGD Wilhelminenstr.7 D-6100 Darmstadt 65 GERMANY Sava Sherr P.O. Box 766 Fairview NJ 07022 phone: (201) 662-2029 Ward Sly 4308 Edinbrook Ter. Minneapolis MN 55443 Madeleine R. Sparks X3H3.4 Chair UNISYS Corp. 4000 S. Memorial Parkway Huntsville AL 35802 phone: (205) 880-5544 fax: (205) 880-5680 X3H3 (Graphics) Paul St. Pierre 110 Spit Brook Road ZKO2-3/N30 Nashua NH 03062 phone: (617) 245-9540 phone: (603) 881-0964 email: stpierrre@tle.enet.dec.com email: stpierre@compass.com fax: (617) 246-1078 Richard C. Swift MASPAR Inc. 749 North Mary Avenue Sunnyvale CA 94086 66 phone: (408) 736-3300 email: argosy!swift@decwrl.dec.com 67 Mabel Vickers National Bureau of Standards Building 225 Room A266 Gaithersburg MD 20899 National Bureau of Standards Hideo Wada Software Division Fujitsu Limited 140 Miyamoto Numazu-shi Shizuoka 410-03 JAPAN phone: (0559) 23-2222 email: wada@lp.nm.fujitsu.co.jp Wolfgang Walter Inst.f.Angewandte Mathematik Universitat Karlsruhe Kaiserstr. 12 D-7500 Karlsruhe 1 GERMANY phone: 011 49 721 37 79 36 email: AE38@DKAUNI2.BITNET fax: 011 49 721 608-4290 Graham Warren Dept. 31/123/844/TOR IBM Canada 844 Don Mills Road Don Mills Ontario M3C 1W3 CANADA WG5/Canada 68 Qing-bao Wu P. O. Box 619 Beijing P.R.O.C. CHINA WG5/China SPARC Secretary CBEMA Suite 500 1250 Eye Street NW Washington D.C. 20005 phone: (202) 737 8888 fax: (202) 638 4922 69 8.5 ISO/WG5 Cornelis G. F. Ampt Krokus Laan 10 B-1981 Tervuren-Vossem BELGIUM Akio Aoyama Hitachi 549-6 Shinano-cho Totsuka-ku Yokohama-shi Kanagawa-ken 244 JAPAN B. Buckley Computing Science Department Dalhousie University Halifax Nova Scotia B3L 3C4 CANADA Jeremy du Croz NAG Central Office Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd. Wilkinson House Jordan Hill Road Oxford OX2 7DE ENGLAND Dale Ellis DRE A P. O. Box 1012 70 Dartmough N.S. B2Y 3Z7 CANADA Ingolf Grieger Dept. of Aerospace Engineering Universitat Stuttgart Pfaffenwaldring 27 D 7000 Stuttgart 80 GERMANY Sven Hammarling NAG Central Office Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd. Mayfield House 256 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 70E ENGLAND email: janet nagsven%vax.oxford.ac.uk @ nss.cs.u fax: 011 44 865 310139 Tadayoshi Kan Department of Physics Faculty of Science Gakushuin University 1-5-1 Mejiro Toshima-ku Tokyo 171 JAPAN H. Sobiesiak Kern Forschungs Zentrum Karlsruhe Iak Postfach 3640 D 7500 Karlsruhe GERMANY 71 Eiji Tokunaga c/o Information Processing Society of Japan The Kilai-Shiukokai Bldg. 1-Shiba-Koen Minato-ku Tokyo JAPAN Rainer Zimmer Seimens AG K D St SP Otto-Hahn - Ring 6 800 Munchen 83 GERMANY