According to the Fortran standard:
The INTENT (OUT) attribute for a nonpointer dummy argument specifies that the dummy argument becomes undefined on invocation of the procedure
However this simple code gives me 5 as output, so it seems the argument didn't become undefined at the start of the procedure (in this case a subroutine).
subroutine useless(a)
integer, intent(out) :: a
print *,a
end subroutine useless
program test
integer :: n=5
call useless(n)
end program test
What am I getting wrong? It seems that intent(inout) and intent(out) are the same.
intent(inout) and intent(out) are certainly not the same. You have noted why, although you don't draw the correct conclusion. On entering the subroutine useless a is undefined, rather than defined.
Having a variable "undefined" means that you cannot rely on a specific behaviour when you reference it. You observed that the variable a had a value 5 but this does not mean that the only value you could observe is 5. In particular "undefined" does not mean "takes a specific value like NaN".
Your code is not standard conforming because of this reference to an undefined variable. See Fortran 2008 6.2 (similar meaning will be somewhere in Fortran 90 as initially tagged). Of particular note is that the compiler doesn't have to point out your mistake.
With intent(inout) the variable a would be defined when referenced and it will be guaranteed to have the value 5 (for a conforming processor).
More widely, there are other differences between the two intent attributes and this "coincidental" appearance of the similarity of the definition of the variable a could be more troublesome.
Allocatable arrays and objects with deferred type parameters, for example, are deallocated; derived types become undefined (and any allocatable components deallocated) and components with default initialization are "re-initalized"; pointers have their association status become undefined.
All of these latter things have potential for very awkward results, much more so than with a scalar integer, if they are referenced without being defined first.
Related
Suppose an dummy argument is modified in a subroutine, and the subroutine doesn't care about its initial value. For a scalar of the standard numerical types (no components), intent(out) would be correct, right?
Now, if the dummy argument is allocatable and the subroutine depends on its allocation status, or if it has components that are not modified by the subroutine but should maintain their initial values (i.e. not become undefined), or, similarly, if it's an array and not all elements are set in the subroutine... Then the proper intent would be intent(inout).
My question is what happens if the dummy argument is an assumed-size array (dimension(*))? Assuming that not all elements are modified in the subroutine and one wants the other elements to retain their initial values, would intent(out) be appropriate? My reasoning is that the subroutine doesn't "know" the size of the array, so it cannot make the elements undefined as it can with a fixed-size array.
Does the standard say anything about this or are compilers free to "guess" for example that if I set A(23) = 42, then all elements A(1:22) can be made undefined (or NaN, or garbage...)?
Note: When I say "retain their initial values", I mean the values in the actual argument outside the subroutine. The subroutine itself doesn't care about the values of these elements, it never reads them or writes them.
Another question looks at what "becomes undefined" means in terms of the dummy argument. However, exactly the same aspects apply to the actual argument with which the dummy argument is associated: it becomes undefined.
The Fortran standard itself gives a note on this aspect "retaining" untouched values (Fortran 2018, 8.5.10, Note 4):
INTENT (OUT) means that the value of the argument after invoking the procedure is entirely the result of executing that procedure. If an argument might not be redefined and it is desired to have the argument retain its value in that case, INTENT (OUT) cannot be used because it would cause the argument to become undefined
That note goes on further to consider whether intent(inout) would be appropriate for when the procedure doesn't care about values:
however, INTENT (INOUT) can be used, even if there is no explicit reference to the value of the dummy argument.
That the array is assumed-size plays no part in the undefinition of the actual and dummy arguments. Again, to stress from my answer to the other question: "undefined" doesn't mean the values are changed. As the compiler has no required action to perform to undefine values, it doesn't need to work out which values to undefine: with an assumed-size dummy argument the procedure doesn't know how large it is, but this doesn't excuse the compiler from "undefining" it, because there's nothing to excuse.
You may well see that the "undefined" parts of the assumed-size array remain exactly the same, but intent(inout) (or no specified intent) remains the correct choice for a compliant Fortran program. With copy-in/copy-out mechanics with intent(out), for example, the compiler wouldn't be obliged to ensure the copy is defined and that junk isn't copied back.
Finally, yes a compiler (perhaps in the hope of being a good debugging compiler) may change values which have become undefined. If the procedure references the n-th element of an array, it's allowed to assume that there are n-1 elements before it and set them as it chooses, for an intent(out) dummy, but not an intent(inout) dummy. (If you access A(n)then the compiler is allowed to assume that that element, and all from the declared lower bound, exist.)
I need in a program to pass some allocatable arrays to subroutines, and i need to know if the way I do it are in the standard or not.
If you know where I can search for the standard of fortran, Tell me please.
Here is a little code that will better explain than words
program test
use modt99
implicit none
real(pr), dimension(:), allocatable :: vx
allocate(vx(-1:6))
vx=(/666,214,558,332,-521,-999,120,55/)
call test3(vx,vx,vx)
deallocate(vx)
end program test
with the module modt99
module modt99
contains
subroutine test3(v1,v2,v3)
real(pr), dimension(:), intent(in) :: v1
real(pr), dimension(0:), intent(in) :: v2
real(pr), dimension(:), allocatable, intent(in) :: v3
print*,'================================'
print*,v1(1:3)
print*,'================================'
print*,v2(1:3)
print*,'================================'
print*,v3(1:3)
print*,'================================'
end subroutine test3
end module modt99
on screen, I get
================================
666.000000000000 214.000000000000 558.000000000000
================================
214.000000000000 558.000000000000 332.000000000000
================================
558.000000000000 332.000000000000 -521.000000000000
================================
So are the three ways of dummy arguments in subroutine test3 legal (in what version of fortran, 90, 95, 2003?) and are their behavior normal?
The first version passes the array slice to the subroutine. Note that boundary information are not passed along in this way, arrays are assumed to start at 1 and go to size(array).
The second way is just like the first one, but you manually set the lower boundary to 0, that's why printing v3(1:3) gives you the values with an offset of 1.
The third way passes all array information to the subroutine (including boundaries), hence the "correct" indexing. Passing allocatable arrays was introduced with Fortran 2003.
Apart from the fact that you have an aliasing issue (passing the same variable to three different dummy arguments), all three versions are legal.
You can find all documents of the standards here.
Especially, take a look at the Fortran 2003 Standard, Ch. 5.1.2.5 DIMENSION attribute to see the differences between assumed shape and deferred shape arrays in dummy arguments.
As stated in the title, I want to directly modify data that I access through a pointer retrieved from a function. Having a reference returned by a function appearing on the l.h.s. of an assignment(=) is no issue in C++ but the following minimal example in fortran errors out:
module test_mod
implicit none
integer, target :: a=1, b=2, c=3 ! some member variables
contains
function get(i)
integer, pointer :: get
integer, intent(in) :: i
select case (i)
case (1)
get => a
case (2)
get => b
case (3)
get => c
end select
end function get
end module test_mod
program test
use test_mod
implicit none
integer, pointer :: i_p
!> prints out 1 2 3
print*, get(1), get(2), get(3)
!> this is what I want but I get the error
!> Error: 'get' at (1) is not a variable
get(2) = 5
!> this works but is not what I want
i_p => get(2)
i_p = 5
end program test
Is there any way to accomplish this behaviour; maybe I'm missing some attributes? I would like to bypass writing any setter routines such as
set(i,value)
since it should mimic the appearance of an array.
In my application, the member variables a,b,c are actually arrays of different size
a = [a1, a2, a3]
b = [b1, b2]
c = [c1]
and I want the getter get(i,j) to mimic a matrix of pointers
j = 1 2 3
i = 1: [[a1, a2, a3],
i = 2: [b1, b2, XX],
i = 3: [c1, XX, XX]]
wehre XX would be referencing to null().
Update:
I am using gfortran (version 5.2.0) and the deployment machines would have only versions starting from 4.6.x and upwards. Therefore, the suggested fortran 2008 standard features are unfortunately not available to me. Is it possible to mimic the behaviour described above without having a compiler supporting it out of the box?
Update 2:
So I ended up implementing a structure as follows
type Vec_t
integer, allocatable, dimension(:) :: vec
end type Vec_t
type(Vec_t), allocatable, dimension(:), target :: data
which I initialise like this (my triangular matrix application I mention at the end)
allocate(data(max))
do i=1,max
allocate(data(i)%vec(i))
end do
and I access & write to it through
print*, data(2)%vec(1)
data(2)%vec(1) = 5
which is not precisely what I was after but good enough for my application.
Let's look at what you want to do:
get(2)=5
and the error message
Error: 'get' at (1) is not a variable
That looks pretty comprehensive: you can't do what you want. Or, perhaps...
get(2) is indeed, under the rules of Fortran 2003, not a variable. In Fortran 2003 a variable is given by the rules R601 and R603, which is a list of designators.
The left-hand side of an assignment must be a variable.
But look at Fortran 2008 and its definition of a variable. Now a variable is either one of those same designators (or ones related to coarrays or complex parts), but it could also (C602 to R602) be a function reference which
shall have a data pointer result.
This is summarized in the introduction of Fortran 2008, detailing the extensions over Fortran 2003, as
A pointer function reference can denote a variable in any variable definition context.
get(2) is a reference to a function that has a data pointer result. get(2) then may appear on the left-hand side of an assignment statement under the rules of Fortran 2008.
Alas, this interpretation of Fortran is not widely supported by current compilers: at the time of answering just the Cray compiler.
This means that this answer is really saying that you have two options: switch compiler or wait until this feature is more widespread. As both of these are likely impractical, you probably want another answer which gives something slightly more portable as a workaround.
I prefer my link to that given by innoSPG, as although this latter is based on the former, the description of the appropriate field "Pointer functions - pointer function ref is a variable" is slightly more clear. This is, though, a more accessible document and a viable alternative.
I'm having a problem of variables getting over-written for I don't know what reason. I've posted a chunk of the code below so you can see how things are declared. The variables strain,Qi,Qf,Qd,tel and Gc are passed into the subroutine and used to calculate ssgrad,strn0,strss0.
My problem is that tel and Gc are passed into the subroutine OK but are for some reason change value during this chunk of code.
Using print statements I've found that the problem first occurs during the 2nd do loop. When I set strss0 to 0, Gc and tel change value from both being equal to 1, to seemingly random numbers: tel=11.52822 Gc=-8.789086 (Just shown for the sake of example)
Each time I run the code they are set to the same values though.
Just to let you know, this subroutine interfaces with a commercial finite element package.
Many thanks in advance for any help with this
subroutine initcalcs(strain,Qi,Qf,Qd,tel,Gc,ssgrad,strn0,strss0)
implicit none
integer :: i,j
real*8:: nstrn0,nstrs0,strn0,strnf,varsq,normvar,lmbda0,lmbdaf,
# ssgrad,t0,tt,tel,nstrnf,nstrsf,Gc
real*8, dimension(3) :: strain,stran0,stranf,strss0,strssf,var
real*8, dimension(3,3) :: Qd,Qi,Qf
lmbda0=1.0d0
nstrn0=0.0d0
do i=1,3
stran0(i)=0.0d0
stran0(i)=strain(i)*lmbda0
nstrn0=nstrn0+stran0(i)**2
end do
nstrn0=dsqrt(nstrn0)
do i=1,3
strss0(i)=0.0d0
end do
In Fortran, there are two common causes of the corruption of memory values. One is a subscript error, where you assign to an array element using an incorrect subscript value. This writes to a memory location outside of the array. The other is a disagreement between the arguments in the call to a procedure (subroutine or function) and the dummy arguments of the procedure. Either can cause problems to appear at source code locations different from the actual cause. Suggestions: inspect your code for these problems. Turn on stringent warning and error checking options of your compiler. The use of Fortran >=90 and modules gives Fortran much better ability to automatically find argument consistency problems. You could monitor the memory locations with a debugger and see what it modifying it.
I concur with M. S. B.: turn on stringent warnings and error checking and verify the subroutine calls are passing arguments that have the same type and shape (array dimensions) as the subroutine expects.
The colons in the variable declaration syntax imply this is Fortran90 or later. If that's the case, I strongly suggest using the INTENT modifier to specify whether arguments are intended to be read-only.
For example, let's assume that of the arguments passed to this routine, strain, Qi, Qf, Qd, tel, and Gc are read-only input and the arguments are ssgrad, strn0, and strss0 are returned as output; that is, whatever value they have is overwritten by this routine.
The variable declarations for the arguments would change to:
real*8, dimension(3), intent(in) :: strain
real*8, dimension(3,3), intent(in) :: Qi, Qf, Qd
real*8, intent(in) :: tel, Gc
real*8, intent(out) :: strn0, ssgrad
real*8, dimension(3), intent(out) :: strss0
The INTENT keyword is an addition to Fortran 90 which allows the user to specify which arguments are read-only (INTENT(IN)), initialized but which may be modified within the routine (INTENT(INOUT)) and which are treated as uninitialized and will be set within the routine (INTENT(OUT)).
If INTENT is not specified, it is defaults to INOUT which is consistent with FORTRAN 77 (Note that there are minor differences between INTENT(INOUT) and INTENT not being specified but they aren't relevant in this example).
A good compiler will throw an error if a routine tries to assign a value to a variable declared INTENT(IN) and will at least throw a warning if a variable declared INTENT(OUT) doesn't get assigned a value.
If possible, set INTENT(IN) on all the variables which are supposed to be read-only. This may not be possible, depending on how those variables are passed to other routines. If INTENT isn't specified on arguments to routines called within this routine, it will default to INOUT. If you pass an INTENT(IN) variable as an INTENT(INOUT) argument, the compiler will throw an error. If this is happening in code you control, you have have to specify INTENT in a number of routines. This may or may not be desirable depending on whether you want to generally improve your code or just fix this one problem really quickly.
I'm assuming some of these variables are passed to external routines in the finite element package which I 'm guessing is linked to your code rather than compiled; I'm not sure how compile-time intent checking is handled in that case.
I am working with a legacy Fortran 77 code subroutine where the parameter types are not declared at the top of the code block.
Here is a snippet showing the very top of the subroutine.
SUBROUTINE BPASS(F1,F2,F3,F4,SI,N,A,IERR)
REAL * 4 A( N ),FV( 4 )
From the above, I think that A is an array of length N with type REAL *4, equivalent in size to a C float. Alternately, FV(4) is an array of length 4 with type REAL *4.
However, what are the types of F1,F2,F3,F4,SI,N,IERR, if the types are not listed? It appears that N should be an integer.
I need to know the types so that I can call the subroutine from C++ code. Is there a Fortran convention for the types that are not declared?
By default Fortran will assign the type integer to variables whose names begin with the letters I,J,K,L,M,N and type real to all other undeclared variables.
I agree with your parsing of the definitions of A and FV.
Modern Fortran provides the expression implicit none for ensuring that the default rules are not applied, but when working with old codes it's sometimes not possible to avoid familiarity with the old dark ways.
In FORTRAN77, by default variables starting with I, J, K, L, M, or N are INTEGER, otherwise they are REAL. FORTRAN90, and some variants of FORTRAN77, provide a mechanism to disable this by using IMPLICIT NONE.