From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Thu Feb 16 16:57:11 1995 Received: from ib.rl.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA12120 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Thu, 16 Feb 1995 17:58:34 +0100 Received: from letterbox.rl.ac.uk by ib.rl.ac.uk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP; Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:58:17 GMT Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id ; Thu, 16 Feb 1995 16:55:49 +0000 Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03054; Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:57:11 GMT Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:57:11 GMT From: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid) Message-Id: <9502161657.AA03054@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk> To: bleikamp@mozart.convex.com Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.707) defect item 173 Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 > > The current wording (in the letter ballot) is technically correct and precise. > If any elements of the two arguments of interest are pointer associated, or > (partially) overlap in any way, then the two arguments ARE storage associated. No. Suppose we have: INTEGER, TARGET :: FROM(2) INTEGER, POINTER :: TO(:) : TO => FROM(2:1:-1) CALL MVBITS(FROM,1,10,TO,1) We need to disallow this, but FROM and TO are not storage associated. FROM occupies 2 adjacent integer storage units. TO occupies a single unspecified storage unit that is different from that of any nonpointer object [247:39-40]. John