Expose saved/static target variable to scope outside - fortran

Is the following code where a local, saved variable is exposed to an outside scope valid Fortran(>=2003) code?
I intentionally did not specify a year for the standard. If the answers differ for different standards, assuming that pointers are supported, I would be also happy to hear the answer.
program test_save
implicit none
integer, pointer :: ptr
ptr => get_number(5)
write(*, *) ptr
contains
function get_number(n) result(res)
integer, intent(in) :: n
integer, pointer :: res
integer, target, save :: internal_n
internal_n = n
res => internal_n
end function
end program

The point to consider is whether the target of res remains defined when the function exits (F2018 19.6.6p1(16)). Because the target has the SAVE attribute, it does remain defined (F2018 19.6.6p1(3)), and therefore the pointer remains defined.

Related

how to get type name in Fortran

How can I get a unique name of a variable type in Fortran? An ideal case is shown below:
for the case
real::a
type(some)::x
I want to implement some function f(x) so that
f(a) = "real"
f(x) = "some"
The return value of f need not be a string, other cases, a unique integer for instance, is OK. Is such a built-in function exist?
No, such capability does not exist in Fortran. Some programming languages do have this (e.g. C++, it has almost anything someone can invent and some more https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/type_info/name but do note the disclaimers about uniqueness and mangling).
You can make a generic function for some limited set of types yourself
interface type_name
procedure type_name_real
procedure type_name_some
end interface
function type_name_real(o) result(res)
character(:), allocatable :: res
real, intent(in) :: o
res = "real"
end function
function type_name_some(o) result(res)
character(:), allocatable :: res
type(some), intent(in) :: o
res = "some"
end function
This obviously concerns the declared type and non-polymorphic entities. But your question did not show any polymorphism.

Accessing pointer to a polymorphic value with C_PTR

I have a Fortran function which compiled with previous versions of Intel Fortran Compiler (ifort), but is rejected by more recent versions (2021.6.0), and I hope to fix it. This function accepts a class(*), and passes its address and length to a C function:
!> Send an arbitrary scalar object.
function SendObject(my,obj) result(ok)
use, intrinsic :: iso_c_binding
implicit none
class(Socket) :: my
class(*), target, intent(in) :: obj
type(c_ptr) :: ptr
integer(c_size_t) :: len
ptr = c_loc(obj)
len = c_sizeof(obj)
ok = my%SendData(ptr,len)
end function
ifort now emits an error:
error #9023: The argument to C_LOC must not be polymorphic. [OBJ]
ptr = c_loc(obj)
While this function is polymorphic, in practice it is used only for a few simple structs containing scalars.
What is the best way to get this function "working" again, as well as it worked with previous compilers? I just need to get a C pointer to obj. Thanks for any help!

Undestanding c_ptr in fortran [duplicate]

I have a Fortran DLL which is called from a C program, and one of my procedures needs periodically to call a callback function which is supplied by the C program. I currently have it working well in its 'simple' form, but I'd like to be able to store my callback pointer inside a derived type, so that it can be passed around within my Fortran code more easily. So far, nothing I've tried seems to work.
To begin with, here is what I have at the moment, and this does work:
Starting in the C (OK, actually C++) program, the header prototype for the callback is:
typedef void (*fcb)(void *)
and the prototype for the Fortran call is:
extern "C" __declspec(dllexport) int fortran_function(int n,
uchar *image_buffer,
fcb callback,
void *object);
The actual callback function is:
void callback(void* pObject)
{
// Cast the void pointer back to the appropriate class type:
MyClass *pMyObject = static_cast<MyClass *>(pObject);
pMyObject -> updateImageInGUI();
}
and the call to the Fortran code from C++ is:
int error = fortran_function(m_image.size(), m_image.data, callback, this);
where m_image is an array of image data which is a member attribute of the current object. What happens is that the C++ passes the raw image data to the Fortran DLL and asks the Fortran to process it, and since this takes a long time the Fortran periodically updates the image buffer and calls the callback to refresh the GUI. Anyway, moving on to the Fortran side, we define an interface for the C callback:
abstract interface
subroutine c_callback(c_object) bind(c)
use, intrinsic :: iso_c_binding
type(c_ptr), intent(in) :: c_object
end subroutine c_callback
end interface
and define our main Fortran routine thus:
integer(c_int) fortran_function(n, image, callback, c_object) &
bind(c, name='fortran_function')
integer(c_int), value :: n
integer(4), intent(inout), dimension(n) :: image
procedure(c_callback) :: callback
type(c_ptr), intent(in) :: c_object
Somewhere in the main routine we call our subroutine, foo:
call foo(data, callback, c_object)
...where foo is defined as:
subroutine foo(data, callback, c_object)
type(my_type), intent(inout) :: data
procedure(c_callback) :: callback
type(c_ptr), intent(in) :: c_object
...
call callback(c_object)
...
end function foo
As I said, all of this works well and has done so for a long time.
Now for the things I've tried but which don't work:
The naive approach, just copying the arguments into the fields of a structure
I'd expect this to work, since all all I'm doing is to copy the original elements into a structure with no modification. Nothing changes on the C side, nor in the definition of the main Fortran function nor the abstract interface to c_callback. All I do is to create a new Fortran derived type:
type :: callback_data
procedure(c_callback), pointer, nopass :: callback => null()
type(c_ptr) :: c_object
end type callback_data
and then in my main function I populate this with the values received from the C application:
data%callback_data%callback => callback
data%callback_data%c_object = c_object
call foo(data)
The subroutine foo has been slightly modified so that it now looks for the callback and C object within the structure:
subroutine foo(data)
type(my_augmented_type), intent(inout) :: data
...
call data%callback_data%callback(data%callback_data%c_object)
...
end function foo
This fails at the call with an "access violation reading location 0xffffffffffffffff".
The sophisticated approach using more of the iso_c_binding features
Again nothing changes on the C side but I modify the Fortran side of the main function to receive the callback as a c_funptr:
integer(c_int) fortran_function(n, image, callback, c_object) &
bind(c, name='fortran_function')
integer(c_int), value :: n
integer(4), intent(inout), dimension(n) :: image
type(c_funptr), intent(in) :: callback
type(c_ptr), intent(in) :: c_object
I define the abstract interface to subroutine c_callback just as before, though I've experimented both with leaving the bind(c) part of it in, and omitting it. The code within the main function that calls the subroutine foo is now:
call c_f_procpointer(callback, data%callback_data%callback)
data%callback_data%c_object = c_object
call foo(data)
...with the subroutine foo itself still defined as in the previous example.
Unfortunately this fails in exactly the same way as the previous example.
I assume that there is a correct syntax to achieve what I'm trying to achieve here, and I'd be very grateful for any advice.
A dummy argument in a Fortran procedure with the BIND(C) attribute that doesn't have the VALUE argument is equivalent on the C side to a pointer parameter (this is broadly consistent with the usual Fortran convention of things being passed by reference). So if on the Fortran side you have INTEGER(C_INT) :: a (no value attribute), that's equivalent on the C side to int *a.
Perhaps that's obvious, but it has a surprising consequence - if you have TYPE(C_PTR) :: p, that's equivalent to void **p - a C_PTR is a pointer, so a C_PTR passed without value is a pointer to a pointer. Given this, your interface for the callback is out (you need to add VALUE).
The interoperable analogue in a type sense to a C pointer to a function (which is what a function name sans parentheses is in C) in Fortran is a TYPE(C_FUNPTR). The same considerations with respect to the absence of the VALUE attribute and C_PTR apply - an argument declared TYPE(C_FUNPTR) :: f is a pointer to a pointer to a function. Given this and your C side call of the Fortran, the argument corresponding to the function pointer should have the VALUE attribute.
The fact that a Fortran procedure pointer happens to work is just a (not terribly surprising) coincidence of the underlying implementation of C function pointers and Fortran procedure pointers, and the way that Fortran procedure pointers are passed.
All up, your Fortran procedure probably needs to have an interface that looks like:
integer(c_int) fortran_function(n, image, callback, c_object) &
bind(c, name='fortran_function')
integer(c_int), value :: n
integer(c_signed_char), intent(inout), dimension(n) :: image
type(c_funptr), intent(in), value :: callback
type(c_ptr), intent(in), value :: c_object
(your declaration of the image array in your original code seems astray - perhaps the above is appropriate, perhaps not)
and your declaration of the interface of the C callback needs to have an interface of:
abstract interface
subroutine c_callback(c_object) bind(c)
use, intrinsic :: iso_c_binding
implicit none
type(c_ptr), intent(in), value :: c_object
end subroutine c_callback
end interface
(As discussed on the Intel fora over the last few months (where have you been?), current ifort may have a problem with it's handling of C_PTR and VALUE.)

Polymorphic pointer to parent class not working

Consider the following class structure, which involves three separate modules:
!----------------------- in file a.f
module parent_body_mod
type :: face
class(parent_body), pointer :: bPtr
end type
type, abstract :: parent_body
integer i
type(face) :: f
end type
end module parent_body_mod
!------------------------ in file b.f
module body_mod
use parent_body_mod
type, extends(parent_body) :: body
end type
interface body
procedure :: new_body
end interface
contains
function new_body() result(b)
type(body), target :: b
b%i = 123
b%f%bPtr => b
end function
end module body_mod
!--------------------------- in file c.f
module body_group_mod
use body_mod
type :: body_group
type(body), allocatable :: b
end type
interface body_group
procedure :: new_body_group
end interface
contains
function new_body_group() result(bg)
type(body_group) :: bg
allocate(bg%b)
bg%b = body()
end function
end module body_group_mod
!------------------- The main program
use body_group_mod
type(body_group) :: my_bg
my_bg = body_group()
print *, my_bg%b%f%bPtr%i
end
!--------------------------------------
The expected output is 123, whereas the actual output is something random. The code is compiled using ifort version 18.0.1. Note that the same issue doesn't happen when using "body" class itself, i.e. the following works just fine:
type(body), allocatable :: my_b
allocate(my_b)
my_b = body()
print *, my_b%f%bPtr%i ! This produces 123 as expected.
Any help is appreciated.
The code is non conforming.
Pointers associated with unsaved local variables of a procedure become undefined when the execution of the procedure completes (F2008 16.5.2.5 (5)). The function result b in function new_body is considered such a local variable (F2008 1.3.154.1), hence the pointer component b%f%bPtr becomes undefined after the function call.
Function results are a little special compare to other local unsaved variables, in that their value is available longer than the variable exists - see F2008 Note 12.41 for some discussion.
Another way of thinking of the problems is that with the statement bg%b = body(), the body on the left hand side is a different object from the body on the right hand side. The assignment just copies the value of the right hand side object - once that assignment is complete, the right hand side object ceases to exist. Nowhere is there code to say that when the value of a body object is transferred - the pointer component needs to be updated to reference the left hand side variable being assigned to. Also note that the left hand side bg%b does not have the TARGET attribute - so there is no way that a pointer can be validly associated with it anyway.

Destruction of Array of Derived Type in Fortran [duplicate]

I defined a derived type and encountered some problems with memory deallocation although I had written the final procedure. The code is as follows
module ModuleCoordinate
implicit none
type :: TCoordinate
real(8),dimension(:),pointer :: Coordinate => NULL()
contains
procedure :: TCoordinateAssignment
generic,public :: Assignment(=) => TCoordinateAssignment
final :: TCoordinateDel
end type TCoordinate
interface TCoordinate
module procedure :: TCoordinateInit
end interface TCoordinate
contains
subroutine TCoordinateDel(self)
type(TCoordinate),intent(inout) :: self
if(associated(self%Coordinate))deallocate(self%Coordinate)
end subroutine TCoordinateDel
subroutine TCoordinateAssignment(O1,O2)
class(TCoordinate),intent(out) :: O1
type(TCoordinate),intent(in) :: O2
if(associated(O2%Coordinate))allocate(O1%Coordinate,source=O2%Coordinate)
end subroutine TCoordinateAssignment
type(TCoordinate) function TCoordinateInit(IVal1,IVal2) result(self)
real(8),intent(in) :: IVal1,IVal2
allocate(self%Coordinate(2))
self%Coordinate=(/IVal1,IVal2/)
end function TCoordinateInit
end module ModuleCoordinate
The test code is as follows
program test
implicit none
integer(4),parameter :: NLoop=40000
integer(4) :: i
do i=1,NLoop
call TestMemory1()
call TestMemory2()
end do
pause
end program test
subroutine TestMemory1()
use ModuleCoordinate
implicit none
integer(4),parameter :: DN=10
integer(4) :: i
type(TCoordinate),dimension(DN) :: a
do i=1,DN
a(i)=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
end do
end subroutine TestMemory1
subroutine TestMemory2()
use ModuleCoordinate
implicit none
type(TCoordinate) :: b1,b2,b3,b4,b5,b6,b7,b8,b9,b10
b1=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
b2=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
b3=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
b4=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
b5=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
b6=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
b7=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
b8=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
b9=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
b10=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
end subroutine TestMemory2
It turns out that the subroutine TestMemory2 is OK while TestMemory1 is not, which means that when an array of this derived type is declared the final procedure doesn't work and the memory leaks.
However, if I delete the => NULL() on the right of the Coordinate in the definition of this derived type, both subroutines seem to work well.
What makes the difference when the pointer Coordinate is being deallocated?
The complier is ifort_2013_sp1.3.174 if it matters.
In the description of the finalization process we see (Fortran 2008, 4.5.6.2)
If the dynamic type of the entity has a final subroutine whose dummy argument has the same kind type parameters and rank as the entity being finalized, it is called with the entity as an actual argument. Otherwise, if there is an elemental final subroutine whose dummy argument has the same
kind type parameters as the entity being finalized, it is called with the entity as an actual argument. Otherwise, no subroutine is called at this point.
There is a final subroutine for the derived type provided only for scalar (rank-0) entities. To have finalization for your rank-1 entity the simplest way (it seems, in this case) is to make the subroutine you have elemental.
I'm slightly reluctant to mention the =>NULL() aspect as I have no current means of testing what I'm about to write, but I'll speculate.
Without the =>NULL() default initialization the pointer component has undefined association status. This means, that when you do
b1=TCoordinate(1.0_8,1.0_8)
interesting things happen.
As part of the assignment b1 is finalized on entry to TCoordinateAssignment. The finalization involves calling associated with the pointer which is of undefined association status. This is not allowed (with the consequence that any result could come about).