Re: Fortran compiler
> I am interested in your company's Fortran Compiler. > Is it free? If not, how much for a permanent license? gfortran is free, part of GCC which is open source software. It is provided on your system: - for Windows see there: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries - for macOS, as part of Homebrew and Macports - for Linux, as part of gcc in your system package management Best regards, FX
Re: Fortran compiler
Hi FX, Thank you so much for your prompt response. Glad to know Gfortran is free. I really appreciate that you have shared the link with me. I will take a look. All the best, Zhenjin From: FX Coudert Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2024 4:07 AM To: Zhenjin Zhu Cc: Fortran List Subject: Re: Fortran compiler > I am interested in your company's Fortran Compiler. > Is it free? If not, how much for a permanent license? gfortran is free, part of GCC which is open source software. It is provided on your system: - for Windows see there: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries - for macOS, as part of Homebrew and Macports - for Linux, as part of gcc in your system package management Best regards, FX
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR59104
Hi All,
I have extended the testcase - see below and have
s/dependent_decls_2/dependent_decls_2.f90/ in the ChnageLog.
Cheers
Paul
! { dg-do run }
!
! Fix for PR59104 in which the dependence on the old style function result
! was not taken into account in the ordering of auto array allocation and
! characters with dependent lengths.
!
! Contributed by Tobias Burnus
!
module m
implicit none
integer, parameter :: dp = kind([double precision::])
contains
function f(x)
integer, intent(in) :: x
real(dp) f(x/2)
real(dp) g(x/2)
integer y(size (f)+1) ! This was the original problem
integer z(size (f) + size (y)) ! Found in development of the fix
integer w(size (f) + size (y) + x) ! Check dummy is OK
f = 10.0
y = 1! Stop -Wall from complaining
z = 1
g = 1
w = 1
if (size (f) .ne. 1) stop 1
if (size (g) .ne. 1) stop 2
if (size (y) .ne. 2) stop 3
if (size (z) .ne. 3) stop 4
if (size (w) .ne. 5) stop 5
end function f
function e(x) result(f)
integer, intent(in) :: x
real(dp) f(x/2)
real(dp) g(x/2)
integer y(size (f)+1)
integer z(size (f) + size (y)) ! As was this.
integer w(size (f) + size (y) + x)
f = 10.0
y = 1
z = 1
g = 1
w = 1
if (size (f) .ne. 2) stop 6
if (size (g) .ne. 2) stop 7
if (size (y) .ne. 3) stop 8
if (size (z) .ne. 5) stop 9
if (size (w) .ne. 9) stop 10
end function
function d(x) ! After fixes to arrays, what was needed was known!
integer, intent(in) :: x
character(len = x/2) :: d
character(len = len (d)) :: line
character(len = len (d) + len (line)) :: line2
character(len = len (d) + len (line) + x) :: line3
line = repeat ("a", len (d))
line2 = repeat ("b", x)
line3 = repeat ("c", len (line3))
if (len (line2) .ne. x) stop 11
if (line3 .ne. "") stop 12
d = line
end
end module m
program p
use m
implicit none
real(dp) y
y = sum (f (2))
if (int (y) .ne. 10) stop 13
y = sum (e (4))
if (int (y) .ne. 20) stop 14
if (d (4) .ne. "aa") stop 15
end program p
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 at 07:14, Paul Richard Thomas <
paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The attached fixes a problem that, judging by the comments, has been
> looked at periodically over the last ten years but just looked to be too
> fiendishly complicated to fix. This is not in small part because of the
> confusing ordering of dummies in the tlink chain and the unintuitive
> placement of all deferred initializations to the front of the init chain in
> the wrapped block.
>
> The result of the existing ordering is that the initialization code for
> non-dummy variables that depends on the function result occurs before any
> initialization code for the function result itself. The fix ensures that:
> (i) These variables are placed correctly in the tlink chain, respecting
> inter-dependencies; and (ii) The dependent initializations are placed at
> the end of the wrapped block init chain. The details appear in the
> comments in the patch. It is entirely possible that a less clunky fix
> exists but I failed to find it.
>
> OK for mainline?
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR59104
Hi Paul,
your approach sounds entirely reasonable.
But as the following addition to the testcase shows, there seem to
be loopholes left.
When I add the following to function f:
integer :: l1(size(y))
integer :: l2(size(z))
print *, size (l1), size (l2), size (z)
I get:
0 0 3
Expected:
2 3 3
Can you please check?
Thanks,
Harald
Am 09.06.24 um 17:57 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas:
Hi All,
I have extended the testcase - see below and have
s/dependent_decls_2/dependent_decls_2.f90/ in the ChnageLog.
Cheers
Paul
! { dg-do run }
!
! Fix for PR59104 in which the dependence on the old style function result
! was not taken into account in the ordering of auto array allocation and
! characters with dependent lengths.
!
! Contributed by Tobias Burnus
!
module m
implicit none
integer, parameter :: dp = kind([double precision::])
contains
function f(x)
integer, intent(in) :: x
real(dp) f(x/2)
real(dp) g(x/2)
integer y(size (f)+1) ! This was the original problem
integer z(size (f) + size (y)) ! Found in development of the fix
integer w(size (f) + size (y) + x) ! Check dummy is OK
f = 10.0
y = 1! Stop -Wall from complaining
z = 1
g = 1
w = 1
if (size (f) .ne. 1) stop 1
if (size (g) .ne. 1) stop 2
if (size (y) .ne. 2) stop 3
if (size (z) .ne. 3) stop 4
if (size (w) .ne. 5) stop 5
end function f
function e(x) result(f)
integer, intent(in) :: x
real(dp) f(x/2)
real(dp) g(x/2)
integer y(size (f)+1)
integer z(size (f) + size (y)) ! As was this.
integer w(size (f) + size (y) + x)
f = 10.0
y = 1
z = 1
g = 1
w = 1
if (size (f) .ne. 2) stop 6
if (size (g) .ne. 2) stop 7
if (size (y) .ne. 3) stop 8
if (size (z) .ne. 5) stop 9
if (size (w) .ne. 9) stop 10
end function
function d(x) ! After fixes to arrays, what was needed was known!
integer, intent(in) :: x
character(len = x/2) :: d
character(len = len (d)) :: line
character(len = len (d) + len (line)) :: line2
character(len = len (d) + len (line) + x) :: line3
line = repeat ("a", len (d))
line2 = repeat ("b", x)
line3 = repeat ("c", len (line3))
if (len (line2) .ne. x) stop 11
if (line3 .ne. "") stop 12
d = line
end
end module m
program p
use m
implicit none
real(dp) y
y = sum (f (2))
if (int (y) .ne. 10) stop 13
y = sum (e (4))
if (int (y) .ne. 20) stop 14
if (d (4) .ne. "aa") stop 15
end program p
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 at 07:14, Paul Richard Thomas <
paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
The attached fixes a problem that, judging by the comments, has been
looked at periodically over the last ten years but just looked to be too
fiendishly complicated to fix. This is not in small part because of the
confusing ordering of dummies in the tlink chain and the unintuitive
placement of all deferred initializations to the front of the init chain in
the wrapped block.
The result of the existing ordering is that the initialization code for
non-dummy variables that depends on the function result occurs before any
initialization code for the function result itself. The fix ensures that:
(i) These variables are placed correctly in the tlink chain, respecting
inter-dependencies; and (ii) The dependent initializations are placed at
the end of the wrapped block init chain. The details appear in the
comments in the patch. It is entirely possible that a less clunky fix
exists but I failed to find it.
OK for mainline?
Regards
Paul
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR59104
Hi Harald,
Thanks for the loophole detection! It is obvious now I see it, as is the
fix. I'll get on to it as soon as I find some time.
Cheers
Paul
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 at 21:35, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> your approach sounds entirely reasonable.
>
> But as the following addition to the testcase shows, there seem to
> be loopholes left.
>
> When I add the following to function f:
>
> integer :: l1(size(y))
> integer :: l2(size(z))
> print *, size (l1), size (l2), size (z)
>
> I get:
>
> 0 0 3
>
> Expected:
>
> 2 3 3
>
> Can you please check?
>
> Thanks,
> Harald
>
>
> Am 09.06.24 um 17:57 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have extended the testcase - see below and have
> > s/dependent_decls_2/dependent_decls_2.f90/ in the ChnageLog.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ! { dg-do run }
> > !
> > ! Fix for PR59104 in which the dependence on the old style function
> result
> > ! was not taken into account in the ordering of auto array allocation and
> > ! characters with dependent lengths.
> > !
> > ! Contributed by Tobias Burnus
> > !
> > module m
> > implicit none
> > integer, parameter :: dp = kind([double precision::])
> > contains
> >function f(x)
> > integer, intent(in) :: x
> > real(dp) f(x/2)
> > real(dp) g(x/2)
> > integer y(size (f)+1) ! This was the original problem
> > integer z(size (f) + size (y)) ! Found in development of the
> fix
> > integer w(size (f) + size (y) + x) ! Check dummy is OK
> > f = 10.0
> > y = 1! Stop -Wall from complaining
> > z = 1
> > g = 1
> > w = 1
> > if (size (f) .ne. 1) stop 1
> > if (size (g) .ne. 1) stop 2
> > if (size (y) .ne. 2) stop 3
> > if (size (z) .ne. 3) stop 4
> > if (size (w) .ne. 5) stop 5
> >end function f
> >function e(x) result(f)
> > integer, intent(in) :: x
> > real(dp) f(x/2)
> > real(dp) g(x/2)
> > integer y(size (f)+1)
> > integer z(size (f) + size (y)) ! As was this.
> > integer w(size (f) + size (y) + x)
> > f = 10.0
> > y = 1
> > z = 1
> > g = 1
> > w = 1
> > if (size (f) .ne. 2) stop 6
> > if (size (g) .ne. 2) stop 7
> > if (size (y) .ne. 3) stop 8
> > if (size (z) .ne. 5) stop 9
> > if (size (w) .ne. 9) stop 10
> >end function
> >function d(x) ! After fixes to arrays, what was needed was known!
> > integer, intent(in) :: x
> > character(len = x/2) :: d
> > character(len = len (d)) :: line
> > character(len = len (d) + len (line)) :: line2
> > character(len = len (d) + len (line) + x) :: line3
> > line = repeat ("a", len (d))
> > line2 = repeat ("b", x)
> > line3 = repeat ("c", len (line3))
> > if (len (line2) .ne. x) stop 11
> > if (line3 .ne. "") stop 12
> > d = line
> >end
> > end module m
> >
> > program p
> > use m
> > implicit none
> > real(dp) y
> >
> > y = sum (f (2))
> > if (int (y) .ne. 10) stop 13
> > y = sum (e (4))
> > if (int (y) .ne. 20) stop 14
> > if (d (4) .ne. "aa") stop 15
> > end program p
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 at 07:14, Paul Richard Thomas <
> > paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The attached fixes a problem that, judging by the comments, has been
> >> looked at periodically over the last ten years but just looked to be too
> >> fiendishly complicated to fix. This is not in small part because of the
> >> confusing ordering of dummies in the tlink chain and the unintuitive
> >> placement of all deferred initializations to the front of the init
> chain in
> >> the wrapped block.
> >>
> >> The result of the existing ordering is that the initialization code for
> >> non-dummy variables that depends on the function result occurs before
> any
> >> initialization code for the function result itself. The fix ensures
> that:
> >> (i) These variables are placed correctly in the tlink chain, respecting
> >> inter-dependencies; and (ii) The dependent initializations are placed at
> >> the end of the wrapped block init chain. The details appear in the
> >> comments in the patch. It is entirely possible that a less clunky fix
> >> exists but I failed to find it.
> >>
> >> OK for mainline?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
