Hi Mikael, > > https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Intel-rejects-ASSOCIATED-pointer-target-for-non-equal-ranks/m-p/1402799/highlight/true#M162159 > > > > I disagree with the conclusion. Quoting Steve Lionel’s post: > > What you're missing is this: > > > > TARGET (optional) shall be allowable as the data-target or proc-target in a > > pointer assignment statement (10.2.2) in which POINTER is > > data-pointer-object or proc-pointer-object. > > > > We then go to 10.2.2 which says (emphasis mine): > > > > C1019 (R1033) If bounds-remapping-list is not specified, the ranks of > > data-pointer-object and data-target shall be the same. > > > > So... not valid Fortran 2018. > > except, that there is also this: > > C1018 (R1033) If bounds-remapping-list is specified, the number of > > bounds-remappings shall equal the rank of data-pointer-object. > which practically imposes no conformance rule between > data-pointer-object and data-target.
this is also why I initially thought that rank remapping is fine. > Note that in the syntax definition, bounds-remapping-list is not part of > data-pointer-object. In other words, by collating a > bounds-remapping-list next to POINTER, one can construct an allowable > pointer assignment from TARGET to POINTER, which satisfies the > requirement, even if TARGET and POINTER don’t have the same rank. I fully agree with you here. My current state of - sort-of - knowledge: - Crayftn 14.0 allows for rank remapping, accepts code the way you describe, including assumed-rank for the POINTER argument. - Nvidia 22.5 allows for rank remapping, but does not handle assumed-rank. - NAG 7.1 is said to reject non-equal rank. NAG 7.0 does not accept it. - Intel rejects non-equal rank. Steve Lionel even thinks that assumed-rank should not be allowed here. I believe he is wrong here. I would normally trust NAG more than Intel and Cray. If somebody else convinces me to accept that NAG has it wrong this time, I would be happy to proceed. Apart from the above discussion about what the compiler should accept, the library side of gfortran seems to be fine... :-) Harald
