From bleikamp@mozart.convex.com Thu Feb 16 06:42:40 1995
Received: from convex.convex.com by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA14392
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>); Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:42:46 +0100
Received: from mozart.convex.com by convex.convex.com (8.6.4.2/1.35)
	id MAA26047; Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:42:42 -0600
Received: from localhost by mozart.convex.com (8.6.4/1.28)
	id MAA12749; Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:42:40 -0600
From: bleikamp@mozart.convex.com (Richard Bleikamp)
Message-Id: <199502161842.MAA12749@mozart.convex.com>
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.707) defect item 173
To: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 12:42:40 CST
Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
In-Reply-To: <9502161657.AA03054@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk>; from "John Reid" at Feb 16, 95 4:57 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

'John Reid' wrote:
> 
> 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,

yes

> but FROM and TO are not storage associated.

Yes they are.  The portions of TO and FROM that this particular intrinsic call
will modify aren't storage associated, but TO and FROM are.

The edits in the ballot prohibit this example.

rich