Using Minpack to solve S-curve - fortran

I'd like to use Minpack (fortran) to estimate the D parameter in the following generalized form of the S-curve: y = (A - D) / (1 + (x**B/C)) + D
The idea is that in this application, the user provides A [which is always 0 to force passage through (0,0)], B, and C, and from there Minpack will find a value for D that forces passage through (1,y), where y is also supplied by the user but must be <= 1. I was able to accomplish this task with the code below, however, minpack is claiming it hasn't converged when in fact it appears that it has. For example, when running this code and entering the values 1 (at the first prompt) and 0 4 0.1 (at the second prompting), minpack returns info = 2, which according to the comments in lmdif means:
relative error between two consecutive iterates is at most xtol.
I'm tempted to comment out line 63, but am worried that's playing with fire...are there any seasoned minpack users out there who could comment on this? Line 63 is the one that reads:
if (info /= 1) stop "failed to converge"
Am I mis-using Minpack even though it appears to converge (based on my verifying the value in pars)?
module types
implicit none
private
public dp
integer, parameter :: dp=kind(0d0)
end module
module f_vals
DOUBLE PRECISION, SAVE, DIMENSION(:), POINTER:: fixed_vals
end module
module find_fit_module
! This module contains a general function find_fit() for a nonlinear least
! squares fitting. The function can fit any nonlinear expression to any data.
use minpack, only: lmdif1
use types, only: dp
implicit none
private
public find_fit
contains
subroutine find_fit(data_x, data_y, expr, pars)
! Fits the (data_x, data_y) arrays with the function expr(x, pars).
! The user can provide any nonlinear function 'expr' depending on any number of
! parameters 'pars' and it must return the evaluated expression on the
! array 'x'. The arrays 'data_x' and 'data_y' must have the same
! length.
real(dp), intent(in) :: data_x(:), data_y(:)
interface
function expr(x, pars) result(y)
use types, only: dp
implicit none
real(dp), intent(in) :: x(:), pars(:)
real(dp) :: y(size(x))
end function
end interface
real(dp), intent(inout) :: pars(:)
real(dp) :: tol, fvec(size(data_x))
integer :: iwa(size(pars)), info, m, n
real(dp), allocatable :: wa(:)
tol = sqrt(epsilon(1._dp))
!tol = 0.001
m = size(fvec)
n = size(pars)
allocate(wa(m*n + 5*n + m))
call lmdif1(fcn, m, n, pars, fvec, tol, info, iwa, wa, size(wa))
open(222, FILE='D_Value.txt')
write(222,4) pars(1)
4 format(E20.12)
close(222)
if (info /= 1) stop "failed to converge"
contains
subroutine fcn(m, n, x, fvec, iflag)
integer, intent(in) :: m, n, iflag
real(dp), intent(in) :: x(n)
real(dp), intent(out) :: fvec(m)
! Suppress compiler warning:
fvec(1) = iflag
fvec = data_y - expr(data_x, x)
end subroutine
end subroutine
end module
program snwdeplcrv
! Find a nonlinear fit of the form y = (A - D) / (1 + (x**B/C)) + D.
use find_fit_module, only: find_fit
use types, only: dp
use f_vals
implicit none
real(dp) :: pars(1), y_int_at_1
real(dp) :: y(1) = 1.0 ! Initialization of value to be reset by user (y: value of S-curve # x=1)
real(dp) :: A, B, C
integer :: i
allocate(fixed_vals(3)) ! A, B, C parameters
pars = [1._dp] ! D parameter in S-curve function
! Read PEST-specified parameters
write(*,*) ' Enter value that S-curve should equal when SWE=1 (must be <= 1)'
read(*,*) y_int_at_1
if(y_int_at_1 > 1.0) y_int_at_1 = 1
y = y_int_at_1
! Read PEST-specified parameters
write(*,*) ' Enter S-curve parameters: A, B, & C. D parameter to be estimated '
read(*,*) A, B, C
fixed_vals(1) = A
fixed_vals(2) = B
fixed_vals(3) = C
call find_fit([(real(i, dp), i=1,size(y))], y, expression, pars)
print *, pars
contains
function expression(x, pars) result(y)
use f_vals
real(dp), intent(in) :: x(:), pars(:)
real(dp) :: y(size(x))
real(dp) :: A, B, C, D
A = fixed_vals(1)
B = fixed_vals(2)
C = fixed_vals(3)
D = pars(1)
y = (A - D) / (1 + (x**B / C)) + D
end function
end program

Related

Fortran Subroutines/Functions: Returned Value Changes If Subroutines/Functions Is Called More Often?

I am currently implementing integrals in Fortran as subroutines. The subroutines on their own return the correct values. If i now call the e.g. same subroutine twice after each other, with the same input values, their returned value differs significantly?
The main program only calls the function like this:
program main
use types
use constants
use integrals
use basis
real(dp), dimension(2,3) :: molecule_coords
real(dp), dimension(2) :: z
type(primitive_gaussian), allocatable :: molecule(:,:)
molecule_coords(1,:) = (/0.,0.,0./)
molecule_coords(2,:) = (/0.,0.,1.6/)
molecule = def_molecule(molecule_coords)
z = (/1.0, 1.0/)
call overlap(molecule) ! Correct Value returned
call overlap(molecule) ! Wrong Value returned
end program main
My function for the overlap looks like this:
module integrals
use types
use constants
use basis
use stdlib_specialfunctions_gamma!, only: lig => lower_incomplete_gamma
contains
subroutine overlap(molecule)
implicit none
type(primitive_gaussian), intent(in) :: molecule(:,:)
integer :: nbasis, i, j, k, l
real(dp) :: norm, p, q, coeff, Kab
real(dp), dimension(3) :: Q_xyz
real(dp), dimension(INT(size(molecule,1)),INT(size(molecule,1))) :: S
nbasis = size(molecule,1)
do i = 1, nbasis
do j = 1, nbasis
! Iterate over l and m primitives in basis
do k = 1, size(molecule(i,:))
do l = 1, size(molecule(j,:))
norm = molecule(i, k)%norm() * molecule(j, l)%norm()
! Eq. 63
Q_xyz = (molecule(i, k)%coords - molecule(j, l)%coords)
! Eq. 64, 65
p = (molecule(i, k)%alpha + molecule(j, l)%alpha)
q = (molecule(i, k)%alpha * molecule(j, l)%alpha) / p
! Eq. 66
Kab = exp(-q * dot_product(Q_xyz,Q_xyz))
coeff = molecule(i, k)%coeff * molecule(j, l)%coeff
S(i,j) = S(i,j) + norm * coeff * Kab * (pi / p) ** (1.5)
end do
end do
end do
end do
print *, S
end subroutine overlap
end module integrals
I am a bit lost, why this would be the case, but I am also rather new to Fortran.
Any help is appreciated! Thanks!

Dummy argument not agreeing with actual argument when passing function

I'm trying to implement Newton's method but I'm getting a confusing error message. In my code you'll see I called external with f1 and f2 which I assumes tells the computer to look for the function but it's treating them as variables based on the error message. I've read the stack overflow posts similar to my issue but none of the solutions seem to work. I've tried with and without the external but the issue still persists. Hoping someone could see what I'm missing.
implicit none
contains
subroutine solve(f1,f2,x0,n, EPSILON)
implicit none
real(kind = 2), external:: f1, f2
real (kind = 2), intent(in):: x0, EPSILON
real (kind = 2):: x
integer, intent(in):: n
integer:: iteration
x = x0
do while (abs(f1(x))>EPSILON)
iteration = iteration + 1
print*, iteration, x, f1(x)
x = x - (f1(x)/f2(x))
if (iteration >= n) then
print*, "No Convergence"
stop
end if
end do
print*, iteration, x
end subroutine solve
end module newton
Program Lab10
use newton
implicit none
integer, parameter :: n = 1000 ! maximum iteration
real(kind = 2), parameter :: EPSILON = 1.d-3
real(kind = 2):: x0, x
x0 = 3.0d0
call solve(f(x),fp(x),x0,n, EPSILON)
contains
real (kind = 2) function f(x) ! this is f(x)
implicit none
real (kind = 2), intent(in)::x
f = x**2.0d0-1.0d0
end function f
real (kind = 2) function fp(x) ! This is f'(x)
implicit none
real (kind = 2), intent(in)::x
fp = 2.0d0*x
end function fp
end program Lab10```
You seem to be passing function results to your subroutine and not the functions themselves. Remove (x) when calling solve() and the problem will be resolved. But more importantly, this code is a prime example of how to not program in Fortran. The attribute external is deprecated and you better provide an explicit interface. In addition, what is the meaning of kind = 2. Gfortran does not even comprehend it. Even if it comprehends the kind, it is not portable. Here is a correct portable modern implementation of the code,
module newton
use iso_fortran_env, only: RK => real64
implicit none
abstract interface
pure function f_proc(x) result(result)
import RK
real(RK), intent(in) :: x
real(RK) :: result
end function f_proc
end interface
contains
subroutine solve(f1,f2,x0,n, EPSILON)
procedure(f_proc) :: f1, f2
real(RK), intent(in) :: x0, EPSILON
integer, intent(in) :: n
real(RK) :: x
integer :: iteration
x = x0
do while (abs(f1(x))>EPSILON)
iteration = iteration + 1
print*, iteration, x, f1(x)
x = x - (f1(x)/f2(x))
if (iteration >= n) then
print*, "No Convergence"
stop
end if
end do
print*, iteration, x
end subroutine solve
end module newton
Program Lab10
use newton
integer, parameter :: n = 1000 ! maximum iteration
real(RK), parameter :: EPSILON = 1.e-3_RK
real(RK) :: x0, x
x0 = 3._RK
call solve(f,fp,x0,n, EPSILON)
contains
pure function f(x) result(result) ! this is f(x)
real (RK), intent(in) :: x
real (RK) :: result
result = x**2 - 1._RK
end function f
pure function fp(x) result(result) ! This is f'(x)
real (RK), intent(in) :: x
real (RK) :: result
result = 2 * x
end function fp
end program Lab10
If you expect to pass nonpure functions to the subroutine solve(), then remove the pure attribute. Note the use of real64 to declare 64-bit (double precision) real kind. Also notice how I have used _RK suffix to assign 64-bit precision to real constants. Also, notice I changed the exponents from real to integer as it is multiplication is more efficient than exponentiation computationally. I hope this answer serves more than merely the solution to Lab10.

Why does a manually programmed matrix multiplication combined with matrix addition give better performance than the intrinsic functions?

I have some legacy code which performs the matrix operation of B = B + A*E as
DO I = 1,N
DO L = 1,N
DO K = 1,N
B(I,K) = B(I,K) + A(I,L)*E(L,K,J-1)
end do
end do
end do
To improve readability as well as take advantage of modern fortran intrinsic functions, I would like to write the above code as
B = B + matmul( A, E(:, 1:N, J-1) )
I noticed that the improved readability comes at the cost of performance. I determined that the problem is not with the intrinsic function matmul - the left figure shows that matmul performs just as well as the manually written operation for all values of N.
When matrix multiplication is combined with matrix addition, then for small values of N the manually written operation performs better than the intrinsic functions. For my uses, usually N < 10; I would like to improve the readability without losing the performance. Might there be a suggestion for that?
The code I am using is below. I am using Mac OS 10.14.6 with gfortran 8.2.0 and compiling with the -O3 optimization option.
program test
implicit none
integer :: loop_max = 1000
integer :: j ! loop index
integer :: i ! loop index
real :: t1, t2 ! start and end times
real :: t_manual, t_intrinsic, t_man_add, t_intrn_add
integer :: N ! matrix dimension
integer, parameter :: NJ = 12
real, dimension(:, :), allocatable :: A, B ! matrices
real, dimension(:, :), allocatable :: D
real, dimension(:), allocatable :: G
real, dimension(:, :, :), allocatable :: E
open(1, file = 'Delete.txt', status = 'unknown')
do N = 1, 40
allocate(A(N,N), B(N,N), G(N), D(N, 2*N+1), E(N, N+1, NJ))
! ##########################################################################
! manual matrix multiplication vs matmul
call rand_fill
call CPU_time(t1)
do i = 1, loop_max
do j = 2, 12
call matmul_manual(j, N, NJ, A, B, D, G, E)
end do
end do
call CPU_time(t2)
t_manual = t2 - t1
write(1, *) A, B, D, G, E
call rand_fill
call CPU_time(t1)
do i = 1, loop_max
do j = 2, 12
B = matmul( A, E(:, 1:N, j-1) )
end do
end do
call CPU_time(t2)
t_intrinsic = t2 - t1
write(1, *) A, B, D, G, E
! --------------------------------------------------------------------------
! ##########################################################################
! manual matrix multiplication with matrix addition
call rand_fill
call CPU_time(t1)
do i = 1, loop_max
do j = 2, 12
call manual_matmul_add(j, N, NJ, A, B, D, G, E)
end do
end do
call CPU_time(t2)
t_man_add = t2 - t1
write(1, *) A, B, D, G, E
! --------------------------------------------------------------------------
! ##########################################################################
! intrinsic matrix multiplication (matmul) with matrix addition
call rand_fill
call CPU_time(t1)
do i = 1, loop_max
do j = 2, 12
call intrinsic_matmul_add(j, N, NJ, A, B, D, G, E)
end do
end do
call CPU_time(t2)
t_intrn_add = t2 - t1
write(1, *) A, B, D, G, E
! --------------------------------------------------------------------------
deallocate(A, B, D, G, E)
print*, N, t_manual, t_intrinsic, t_man_add, t_intrn_add
end do
contains
subroutine rand_fill
! fill the matrices with random numbers
call random_number(A)
call random_number(B)
call random_number(D)
call random_number(G)
call random_number(E)
end subroutine
end program test
subroutine matmul_manual(j, N, NJ, A, B, D, G, E)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: j
integer, intent(in) :: N, NJ
real, dimension(N, N), intent(in out) :: A, B
real, dimension(N, 2*N+1), intent(in out) :: D
real, dimension(N), intent(in out) :: G
real, dimension(N, N+1, NJ), intent(in out) :: E
integer :: I, L, K ! loop indices
B = 0.0
DO I = 1,N
DO L = 1,N
DO K = 1,N
B(I,K) = B(I,K) + A(I,L)*E(L,K,J-1)
end do
end do
end do
end subroutine matmul_manual
subroutine manual_matmul_add(j, N, NJ, A, B, D, G, E)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: j
integer, intent(in) :: N, NJ
real, dimension(N, N), intent(in out) :: A, B
real, dimension(N, 2*N+1), intent(in out) :: D
real, dimension(N), intent(in out) :: G
real, dimension(N, N+1, NJ), intent(in out) :: E
integer :: I, L, K ! loop indices
DO I = 1,N
D(I,N+1) = -G(I)
DO L = 1,N
D(I,N+1) = D(I,N+1)+A(I,L)*E(L,N+1,J-1)
DO K = 1,N
B(I,K) = B(I,K) + A(I,L)*E(L,K,J-1)
end do
end do
end do
end subroutine manual_matmul_add
subroutine intrinsic_matmul_add(j, N, NJ, A, B, D, G, E)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: j
integer, intent(in) :: N, NJ
real, dimension(N, N), intent(in out) :: A, B
real, dimension(N, 2*N+1), intent(in out) :: D
real, dimension(N), intent(in out) :: G
real, dimension(N, N+1, NJ), intent(in out) :: E
real, dimension(N, N+1) :: temp1
real, dimension(N, N) :: temp2
D(:, N+1) = -G + matmul( A, E(:, N+1, j-1) )
B = B + matmul( A, E(:, 1:N, j-1) )
end subroutine intrinsic_matmul_add
subroutine mat_sub_new(j, N, NJ, A, B, D, G, E)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: j
integer, intent(in) :: N, NJ
real, dimension(N, N), intent(in out) :: A, B
real, dimension(N, 2*N+1), intent(in out) :: D
real, dimension(N), intent(in out) :: G
real, dimension(N, N+1, NJ), intent(in out) :: E
if (N == 1) then ! matmul seems to be inefficient when N = 1
D(N,N+1) = -G(N) + A(N,N)*E(N, N+1, J-1)
B(N,N) = B(N,N) + A(N,N)*E(N, N, J-1)
else
D(:, N+1) = -G + matmul( A, E(:, N+1, j-1) )
B = B + matmul( A, E(:, 1:N, j-1) )
end if
end subroutine mat_sub_new
I suspect this has to do with two issues:
How the compiler resolves the MATMUL generic interface to a proper call to the correct routine (REAL vs. COMPLEX vs. INTEGER, or matrix times vector vs. matrix times matrix): I have no idea whether this is done systematically at compilation or at runtime, or whether this choice is made based on the optimization level; (this would justify the additional overhead especially for the low-size cases)
The internal "general purpose" algorithm may not be in general the best suited for your problem, as it looks like in some cases, brute-force compiler optimization does a better job. Is gfortran's MATMUL intrinsics based on BLAS, for example? If so, that may not be the fastest.
I've done a similar test with NORM2 on my PC (Windows, i7, gfortran 9.2.0, compiled with -O3 -march=core-avx2): Turns out that, for NORM2:
The BLAS implementation is always slowest, despite having been slightly refactored to feed the compiler a PURE version
Usage of the intrinsics (both NORM2 or SQRT(SUM(X**2))) is always slow, regardless of the array size
The fastest cases are when either using a simple loop, or the intrinsics with a fixed-size array:
ARRAY SIZE assumed-shape fixed-size intrinsic NORM2 LOOP BLAS
N [ms/N] [ms/N] [ms/N] [ms/N] [ms/N]
2 5.93750E-09 4.06250E-09 8.43750E-09 4.06250E-09 1.03125E-08
12 1.03125E-08 7.81250E-09 3.12500E-08 7.81250E-09 5.09375E-08
22 1.65625E-08 1.40625E-08 5.50000E-08 1.43750E-08 9.15625E-08
32 2.25000E-08 2.00000E-08 7.81250E-08 2.00000E-08 1.29375E-07
BTW The code is pasted here below (beware of the large memory footprint!):
program test_norm
use iso_fortran_env
implicit none
integer :: xsize,i,iunit,icase
integer, parameter :: testSize = 50000000
real(real64), allocatable :: set(:,:),setNorm(:)
real(real64) :: t0,t1,setSum(5),timeTable(5,35)
intrinsic :: norm2
open(newunit=iunit,file='garbage.txt',action='write')
print '(6(1x,a15))' ,'ARRAY SIZE','assumed-shape','fixed-size','intrinsic NORM2','LOOP','BLAS'
print '(6(1x,a15))' ,'N',('[ms/N]',i=1,5)
icase = 0
do xsize = 2,32,10
! Initialize test set
icase = icase+1
allocate(set(xsize,testSize),setNorm(testSize))
call random_number(set)
! Test 1: intrinsic SQRT/SUM, assumed-shape array
call cpu_time(t0); forall(i=1:testSize) setNorm(i) = norm_v1(set(:,i)); call cpu_time(t1)
setSum(1) = sum(setNorm); timeTable(1,icase) = t1-t0
! Test 2: intrinsic SQRT/SUM, fixed-size array
call cpu_time(t0); forall(i=1:testSize) setNorm(i) = norm_v2(xsize,set(:,i)); call cpu_time(t1)
setSum(2) = sum(setNorm); timeTable(2,icase) = t1-t0
! Test 3: intrinsic NORM2
call cpu_time(t0); forall(i=1:testSize) setNorm(i) = norm2(set(:,i)); call cpu_time(t1)
setSum(3) = sum(setNorm); timeTable(3,icase) = t1-t0
! Test 4: LOOP
call cpu_time(t0); forall(i=1:testSize) setNorm(i) = norm_v3(xsize,set(:,i)); call cpu_time(t1)
setSum(4) = sum(setNorm); timeTable(4,icase) = t1-t0
! Test 5: BLAS
call cpu_time(t0); forall(i=1:testSize) setNorm(i) = DNRM2(xsize,set(:,i),1); call cpu_time(t1)
setSum(5) = sum(setNorm); timeTable(5,icase) = t1-t0
! Print output
print '(7x,i2,9x,5(2x,1pe13.5e2,1x))', xsize,timeTable(:,icase)/testSize
write (iunit,*) 'setSum = ',setSum
deallocate(set,setNorm)
end do
close(iunit)
contains
pure real(real64) function norm_v1(x) result(L2)
real(real64), intent(in) :: x(:)
L2 = sqrt(sum(x**2))
end function norm_v1
pure real(real64) function norm_v2(n,x) result(L2)
integer, intent(in) :: n
real(real64), intent(in) :: x(n)
L2 = sqrt(sum(x**2))
end function norm_v2
pure real(real64) function norm_v3(n,x) result(L2)
integer, intent(in) :: n
real(real64), intent(in) :: x(n)
integer :: i
L2 = 0.0_real64
do i=1,n
L2 = L2 + x(i)**2
end do
L2 = sqrt(L2)
end function norm_v3
PURE REAL(REAL64) FUNCTION DNRM2 ( N, X, INCX )
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: N,INCX
REAL(REAL64), INTENT(IN) :: X( * )
REAL(REAL64), PARAMETER :: ONE = 1.0_REAL64
REAL(REAL64), PARAMETER :: ZERO = 0.0_REAL64
INTEGER :: IX
REAL(REAL64) :: ABSXI, NORM, SCALE, SSQ
INTRINSIC :: ABS, SQRT
IF( N<1 .OR. INCX<1 )THEN
NORM = ZERO
ELSE IF( N==1 )THEN
NORM = ABS( X( 1 ) )
ELSE
SCALE = ZERO
SSQ = ONE
DO IX = 1, 1 + ( N - 1 )*INCX, INCX
IF( X( IX )/=ZERO )THEN
ABSXI = ABS( X( IX ) )
IF( SCALE<ABSXI )THEN
SSQ = ONE + SSQ*( SCALE/ABSXI )**2
SCALE = ABSXI
ELSE
SSQ = SSQ + ( ABSXI/SCALE )**2
END IF
END IF
END DO
NORM = SCALE * SQRT( SSQ )
END IF
DNRM2 = NORM
RETURN
END FUNCTION DNRM2
end program test_norm

Using MKL to solve a non-linear system of equations with an objective function stored in another module

I'm trying to use the MKL trust region algorithm to solve a nonlinear system of equations in a Fortran program. I started from the example provided online (ex_nlsqp_f90_x.f90 https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/501498) and everything works correctly. Now, because I have to use this in a much bigger program, I need the user defined objective function to be loaded from a separate module. Hence, I split the example into 2 separate files, but I'm not able to make it compile correctly.
So here is the code for module which contains user defined data structure and the objective function
module modFun
implicit none
private
public my_data, extended_powell
type :: my_data
integer a
integer sum
end type my_data
contains
subroutine extended_powell (m, n, x, f, user_data)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: m, n
real*8 , intent(in) :: x(n)
real*8, intent(out) :: f(m)
type(my_data) :: user_data
integer i
user_data%sum = user_data%sum + user_data%a
do i = 1, n/4
f(4*(i-1)+1) = x(4*(i-1)+1) + 10.0 * x(4*(i-1)+2)
f(4*(i-1)+2) = 2.2360679774998 * (x(4*(i-1)+3) - x(4*(i-1)+4))
f(4*(i-1)+3) = ( x(4*(i-1)+2) - 2.0 * x(4*(i-1)+3) )**2
f(4*(i-1)+4) = 3.1622776601684 * (x(4*(i-1)+1) - x(4*(i-1)+4))**2
end do
end subroutine extended_powell
end module modFun
and here the portion of the main program calling it
include 'mkl_rci.f90'
program EXAMPLE_EX_NLSQP_F90_X
use MKL_RCI
use MKL_RCI_type
use modFun
! user's objective function
! n - number of function variables
! m - dimension of function value
integer n, m
parameter (n = 4)
parameter (m = 4)
! precisions for stop-criteria (see manual for more details)
real*8 eps(6)
real*8 x(n)
real*8 fjac(m*n)
! number of iterations
integer fun
! Additional users data
type(my_data) :: m_data
m_data%a = 1
m_data%sum = 0
rs = 0.0
fun = djacobix(extended_powell,n,m,fjac,x,eps(1),%val(loc(m_data)))
end program EXAMPLE_EX_NLSQP_F90_X
Also djacobix code
INTERFACE
INTEGER FUNCTION DJACOBIX(fcn, n, m, fjac, x, eps, user_data)
USE, INTRINSIC :: ISO_C_BINDING
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: n
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: m
DOUBLE PRECISION, INTENT(IN) :: eps
DOUBLE PRECISION, INTENT(IN), DIMENSION(*) :: x
DOUBLE PRECISION, INTENT(OUT), DIMENSION(m, *) :: fjac
INTEGER(C_INTPTR_T) :: user_data
INTERFACE
SUBROUTINE fcn(m, n, x, f, user_data)
USE, INTRINSIC :: ISO_C_BINDING
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: n
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: m
DOUBLE PRECISION, INTENT(IN), DIMENSION(*) :: x
DOUBLE PRECISION, INTENT(OUT), DIMENSION(*) :: f
INTEGER(C_INTPTR_T), INTENT(IN) :: user_data
END SUBROUTINE
END INTERFACE
END FUNCTION
END INTERFACE
When i compile the following errors are generated:
mpiifort -g -t -mkl -I/apps/rhel6/intel/composer_xe_2015.3.187/mkl/include/intel64/lp64 -c modFun.f90
mpiifort -g -t -mkl -I/apps/rhel6/intel/composer_xe_2015.3.187/mkl/include/intel64/lp64 -c main.f90
main.f90(30): error #7065: The characteristics of dummy argument 5 of the associated actual procedure differ from the characteristics of dummy argument 5 of the dummy procedure. [EXTENDED_POWELL]
fun = djacobix(extended_powell,n,m,fjac,x,eps(1),%val(loc(m_data)))
-------------------^
I have the feeling I have to create an interface to override the check on the m_data, but I can't figure out where and how. Can anyone help me with this problem providing a working example?
I guess the reason is that the function djacobix passes the pointer instead of the true value of variable user_data.
You can check the manual at https://software.intel.com/content/www/us/en/develop/documentation/onemkl-developer-reference-c/top/nonlinear-optimization-problem-solvers/jacobian-matrix-calculation-routines/jacobix.html where a sentence shows that "You need to declare fcn as extern in the calling program."

Declaring parameters through input arguments in FORTRAN

I am trying to write a fortran routine where I declare arrays whose length comes from operations made upon the input parameters.
subroutine my_program(N, A,B,m)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: N
integer, parameter :: minA = 1, maxA = N
integer, parameter :: minB = 0, maxB = N-1
double precision, intent(out) :: max,A(minA:maxA),B(minB:maxB)
A = 0.d0
B = 1.d0
m = maxA*maxB-minA*minB
end subroutine my_program
Right now, I have an error coming from the the 5th line Parameter 'N' at (1) has not been declared or is a variable, which does not reduce to a constant expression
N is not known at compile time, so you cannot use it to initialize a parameter. Instead, use N directly to declare A and B:
subroutine my_program(N, A, B, m)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: N
double precision, intent(out) :: m, A(1:N), B(0:N-1)
integer :: minA, maxA
integer :: minB, maxB
minA = 1 ; maxA = N
minB = 0 ; maxB = N-1
A = 0.d0
B = 1.d0
m = maxA*maxB - minA*minB
end subroutine my_program