Fortran 90 - segmentation fault - fortran

I am making a program that converts a decimal integer into its binary representation. Here is my code:
program test
implicit none
integer, dimension(:), allocatable :: binary
integer :: decimalnum, i, initvalue
print*, "Enter decimal number to convert: "
read*,initvalue
decimalnum = initvalue
i = 0
do while (decimalnum > 0)
if (MOD(decimalnum,2)==0) then
binary(i) = 0 ! this is as far as the program executes up to
decimalnum = decimalnum / 2
i = i + 1
else if (MOD(decimalnum,2)==1) then
binary(i) = 1
decimalnum = (decimalnum -1) / 2
i = i + 1
end if
end do
end program test
At the marked point, it returns the error Segmentation fault and exits with code 139.
Why does this happen?
Thanks in advance.

Here's a simple way to convert an integer i to its binary representation:
write(*,'(b16)') i
As written, this won't write any leading 0s. If you want the leading 0s, try
write(*,'(b16.16)') i
Of course, the preceding code writes the binary representation to the default output unit but using Fortran's internal write capabilities I could just as easily write the bits to a character variable. For example:
character(len=16) :: bits
...
write(bits,'(b16.16)') i
writes the binary digits of i into the character variable bits.
Now, if what you really want is to create an array of integers each representing one bit of the binary representation, then something like this
integer, dimension(16) :: bitarray
...
bitarray = 0
...
do ix = 1,len(bits)
if (bits(ix:ix)=='1') bitarray(ix) = 1
end do
would probably work.

1) Your crash occurs because you had allocated only 1 element for the array binary(:), and the While loop presumably had moved on to i = 2, at which point your array is index out of bounds (crash).
2) Fortran has a number of intrinsic functions that deal with bits directly. For example,
a) Bit_Size(var) returns the number of bits in "var", so if you must use an allocatable, now you know the array size required in advance.
b) BTest(iVar, pos) returns .True. if the bit at pos in iVar is 1
For example, using the other declarations above,:
Integer :: n
n = Bit_Size(decimalnum)
If( Allocated(Binary) ) DeAllocate(Binary) ! good practice
Allocate( Binary(1:n) ) ! in general, should get IOStat, just in case
Binary(:) = 0
ForAll(i=1:n, Mask = BTest( decimalnum, i-1 ) ) ! remember, bit intrinsics index from 0
Binary(i) = 1
End ForAll
... this is a little more efficient compared to Do and While, and may help (a little) towards smp. The Where/EndWhere construct can be used also, but I find ForAll's a little more efficient.
c) IBits(var, pos, len) extracts the bits from var starting at pos for len number of bits, for example if you wanted to create an "explicit" binary representation, that might be one way to go.
etc etc
3) If you "really mean" convert DecimalNum to Bin, then you have (substantial) additional problems, if Dec also includes floating point Dec (i.e. Reals), since the bit representation of Reals is in terms of exponents. I will assume that is not the case, as the code/explanation for that is much much more involved.
Finally, in Fortran, Nums are usually "signed" Nums and the leading bit is used to determine +ve (0) or -ve (1). So if you were going in the "other" direction (Bin2Dec), then would prefer an additional arg (perhaps optional) that controls whether the result is signed or unsigned. If unsigned, then the output var will need to be "bigger" compared to the input var (e.g. if converting unsigned 1-byt int to Fortran int, then must use at least 2-byte int (i.e. input Integer(1) must be output to an Integer(2)) etc.

As per the comments, you need to have executed an allocate statement (or something which does an allocation for you under the covers) before you can define the binary array. The simplest form of allocation statement would look something like ALLOCATE(binary(10)), which would given the binary array 10 elements, using the default (it can be changed for that array using the allocate statement) starting array index of 1.
Where the size of the allocation is not easily known before working with an array there are two basic approaches:
Do two passes, the first pass of which simply counts how many elements are required, then the array is allocated, then the second pass actually does the assignment to the relevant elements.
Allocate the array to an initial size (which may be zero), the progressively grow the array as required.
There are trade-offs associated with the decision around the approach to use associated with the relative overheads of things like allocation and the evaluation of each test when counting.
In Fortran 90 (time to move on to at least Fortran 95!), growing an allocatable array is somewhat convoluted (allocate a temporary, copy data from original to temporary, deallocate original, allocate original to new size, copy data from temporary back to resized original, deallocate temporary). In Fortran 2003 this operation becomes trivial.

so this is probably awful form, and certainly bad runtime (it copies the array for every single bit), but here's what I came up with. It seems to work.
program test
implicit none
integer, dimension(:), allocatable :: binary
integer :: decimalnum, i, initvalue, curSize, curBit
print*, "Enter decimal number to convert: "
read*,initvalue
decimalnum = initvalue
i = 1
ALLOCATE ( binary(1) )
curSize = 1
DO WHILE (decimalnum > 0)
IF (i > curSize ) THEN
curSize = curSize * 2
CALL expandArray( curSize, i-1 )
END IF
IF (MOD(decimalnum,2)==0) then
binary(i) = 0 ! this is as far as the program executes up to
decimalnum = decimalnum / 2
i = i + 1
ELSE IF (MOD(decimalnum,2)==1) then
binary(i) = 1
decimalnum = (decimalnum -1) / 2
i = i + 1
END IF
end do
PRINT*, binary
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE expandArray( newSize, oldSize )
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER, DIMENSION(:), ALLOCATABLE :: temp
INTEGER :: j, newSize, oldSize
ALLOCATE( temp(newSize) )
DO j=1,oldSize
temp(j) = binary(j)
END DO
DEALLOCATE (binary)
ALLOCATE( binary(newSize) )
DO j=1,oldSize
binary(j) = temp(j)
END DO
DO j=oldSize+1,newSize
binary(j) = 0
END DO
DEALLOCATE (temp)
END SUBROUTINE
END PROGRAM test

Related

The sum function returns answers different from an explicit loop

I am converting f77 code to f90 code, and part of the code needs to sum over elements of a 3d matrix. In f77 this was accomplished by using 3 loops (over outer,middle,inner indices). I decided to use the f90 intrinsic sum (3 times) to accomplish this, and much to my surprise the answers differ. I am using the ifort compiler, have debugging, check-bounds, no optimization all turned on
Here is the f77-style code
r1 = 0.0
do k=1,nz
do j=1,ny
do i=1,nx
r1 = r1 + foo(i,j,k)
end do
end do
end do
and here is the f90 code
r = SUM(SUM(SUM(foo, DIM=3), DIM=2), DIM=1)
I have tried all sorts of variations, such as swapping the order of the loops for the f77 code, or creating temporary 2D matrices and 1D arrays to "reduce" the dimensions while using SUM, but the explicit f77 style loops always give different answers from the f90+ SUM function.
I'd appreciate any suggestions that help understand the discrepancy.
By the way this is using one serial processor.
Edited 12:13 pm to show complete example
! ifort -check bounds -extend-source 132 -g -traceback -debug inline-debug-info -mkl -o verify verify.f90
! ./verify
program verify
implicit none
integer :: nx,ny,nz
parameter(nx=131,ny=131,nz=131)
integer :: i,j,k
real :: foo(nx,ny,nz)
real :: r0,r1,r2
real :: s0,s1,s2
real :: r2Dfooxy(nx,ny),r1Dfoox(nx)
call random_seed
call random_number(foo)
r0 = 0.0
do k=1,nz
do j=1,ny
do i=1,nx
r0 = r0 + foo(i,j,k)
end do
end do
end do
r1 = 0.0
do i=1,nx
do j=1,ny
do k=1,nz
r1 = r1 + foo(i,j,k)
end do
end do
end do
r2 = 0.0
do j=1,ny
do i=1,nx
do k=1,nz
r2 = r2 + foo(i,j,k)
end do
end do
end do
!*************************
s0 = 0.0
s0 = SUM(SUM(SUM(foo, DIM=3), DIM=2), DIM=1)
s1 = 0.0
r2Dfooxy = SUM(foo, DIM = 3)
r1Dfoox = SUM(r2Dfooxy, DIM = 2)
s1 = SUM(r1Dfoox)
s2 = SUM(foo)
!*************************
print *,'nx,ny,nz = ',nx,ny,nz
print *,'size(foo) = ',size(foo)
write(*,'(A,4(ES15.8))') 'r0,r1,r2 = ',r0,r1,r2
write(*,'(A,3(ES15.8))') 'r0-r1,r0-r2,r1-r2 = ',r0-r1,r0-r2,r1-r2
write(*,'(A,4(ES15.8))') 's0,s1,s2 = ',s0,s1,s2
write(*,'(A,3(ES15.8))') 's0-s1,s0-s2,s1-s2 = ',s0-s1,s0-s2,s1-s2
write(*,'(A,3(ES15.8))') 'r0-s1,r1-s1,r2-s1 = ',r0-s1,r1-s1,r2-s1
stop
end
!**********************************************
sample output
nx,ny,nz = 131 131 131
size(foo) = 2248091
r0,r1,r2 = 1.12398225E+06 1.12399525E+06 1.12397238E+06
r0-r1,r0-r2,r1-r2 = -1.30000000E+01 9.87500000E+00 2.28750000E+01
s0,s1,s2 = 1.12397975E+06 1.12397975E+06 1.12398225E+06
s0-s1,s0-s2,s1-s2 = 0.00000000E+00-2.50000000E+00-2.50000000E+00
r0-s1,r1-s1,r2-s1 = 2.50000000E+00 1.55000000E+01-7.37500000E+00
First, welcome to StackOverflow. Please take the tour! There is a reason we expect a Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example because we look at your code and can only guess at what might be the case and that is not too helpful for the community.
I hope the following suggestions helps you figure out what is going on.
Use the size() function and print what Fortran thinks are the sizes of the dimensions as well as printing nx, ny, and nz. As far as we know, the array is declared bigger than nx, ny, and nz and these variables are set according to the data set. Fortran does not necessarily initialize arrays to zero depending on whether it is a static or allocatable array.
You can also try specifying array extents in the sum function:
r = Sum(foo(1:nx,1:ny,1:nz))
If done like this, at least we know that the sum function is working on the exact same slice of foo that the loops loop over.
If this is the case, you will get the wrong answer even though there is nothing 'wrong' with the code. This is why it is particularly important to give that Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example.
I can see the differences now. These are typical rounding errors from adding small numbers to a large sum. The processor is allowed to use any order of the summation it wants. There is no "right" order. You cannot really say that the original loops make the "correct" answer and the others do not.
What you can do is to use double precision. In extreme circumstances there are tricks like the Kahan summation but one rarely needs that.
Addition of a small number to a large sum is imprecise and especially so in single precision. You still have four significant digits in your result.
One typically does not use the DIM= argument, that is used in certain special circumstances.
If you want to sum all elements of foo, use just
s0 = SUM(foo)
That is enough.
What
s0 = SUM(SUM(SUM(foo, DIM=3), DIM=2), DIM=1)
does is that it will make a temporary 2D arrays with each element be the sum of the respective row in the z dimension, then a 1D array with each element the sum over the last dimension of the 2D array and then finally the sum of that 1D array. If it is done well, the final result will be the same, but it well eat a lot of CPU cycles.
The sum intrinsic function returns a processor-dependant approximation to the sum of the elements of the array argument. This is not the same thing as adding sequentially all elements.
It is simple to find an array x where
summation = x(1) + x(2) + x(3)
(performed strictly left to right) is not the best approximation for the sum treating the values as "mathematical reals" rather than floating point numbers.
As a concrete example to look at the nature of the approximation with ifort, we can look at the following program. We need to enable optimizations here to see effects; the importance of order of summation is apparent even with optimizations disabled (with -O0 or -debug).
implicit none
integer i
real x(50)
real total
x = [1.,(EPSILON(0.)/2, i=1, SIZE(x)-1)]
total = 0
do i=1, SIZE(x)
total = total+x(i)
print '(4F17.14)', total, SUM(x(:i)), SUM(DBLE(x(:i))), REAL(SUM(DBLE(x(:i))))
end do
end program
If adding up in strict order we get 1., seeing that anything smaller in magnitude than epsilon(0.) doesn't affect the sum.
You can experiment with the size of the array and order of its elements, the scaling of the small numbers and the ifort floating point compilation options (such as -fp-model strict, -mieee-fp, -pc32). You can also try to find an example like the above using double precision instead of default real.

How to implement factorial function into code?

So I am using the taylor series to calculate sin(0.75) in fortran 90 up until a certain point, so I need to run it in a do while loop (until my condition is met). This means I will need to use a factorial, here's my code:
program taylor
implicit none
real :: x = 0.75
real :: y
integer :: i = 3
do while (abs(y - sin(0.75)) > 10.00**(-7))
i = i + 2
y = x - ((x**i)/fact(i))
print *, y
end do
end program taylor
Where i've written fact(i) is where i'll need the factorial. Unfortunately, Fortran doesn't have an intrinsic ! function. How would I implement the function in this program?
Thanks.
The following simple function answers your question. Note how it returns a real, not an integer. If performance is not an issue, then this is fine for the Taylor series.
real function fact(n)
integer, intent(in) :: n
integer :: i
if (n < 0) error stop 'factorial is singular for negative integers'
fact = 1.0
do i = 2, n
fact = fact * i
enddo
end function fact
But the real answer is that Fortran 2008 does have an intrinsic function for the factorial: the Gamma function. For a positive integer n, it is defined such that Gamma(n+1) == fact(n).
(I can imagine the Gamma function is unfamiliar. It's a generalization of the factorial function: Gamma(x) is defined for all complex x, except non-positive integers. The offset in the definition is for historical reasons and unnecessarily confusing it you ask me.)
In some cases you may want to convert the output of the Gamma function to an integer. If so, make sure you use "long integers" via INT(Gamma(n+1), kind=INT64) with the USE, INTRINSIC :: ISO_Fortran_env declaration. This is a precaution against factorials becoming quite large. And, as always, watch out for mixed-mode arithmetic!
Here's another method to compute n! in one line using only inline functions:
product((/(i,i=1,n)/))
Of course i must be declared as an integer beforehand. It creates an array that goes from 1 to n and takes the product of all components. Bonus: It even works gives the correct thing for n = 0.
You do NOT want to use a factorial function for your Taylor series. That would meant computing the same terms over and over. You should just multiply the factorial variable in each loop iteration. Don't forget to use real because the integer will overflow quickly.
See the answer under the question of your schoolmate Program For Calculating Sin Using Taylor Expansion Not Working?
Can you write the equation which gives factorial?
It may look something like this
PURE FUNCTION Bang(N)
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: N
INTEGER :: I
INTEGER :: Bang
Bang = N
IF(N == 2) THEN
Bang = 2
ELSEIF(N == 1) THEN
Bang = 1
ELSEIF(N < 1) THEN
WRITE(*,*)'Error in Bang function N=',N
STOP
ELSE
DO I = (N-1), 2, -1
Bang = Bang * I
ENDDO
ENDIF
RETURN
END FUNCTION Bang

Do-loop ignores if-statement

I'm trying to use an if statement in a do loop which is supposed to generate prime numbers. For that I used modulo to sort out the numbers. After it found a prime number I want it to go a step further and add 1 so that the next prime number can be found and added to the array pzahl. My problem is that the loop seems to ignore that it should go a step further with plauf after it found a prime number so that it just keeps going till infinity... I tried to rearrange the contents of the loop and if statement but it's just not working. Here is the code:
PROGRAM Primzahlen
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER :: start, plauf, n, a
INTEGER, ALLOCATABLE, DIMENSION(:) :: pzahlen !array into which the prime numbers should be added
INTEGER :: input
INTEGER, DIMENSION(:), ALLOCATABLE :: alle
PRINT *, "How many prime numbers should be listed"
READ (*,*) input
ALLOCATE (pzahlen(input))
pzahlen(1) = 1
start = 2
plauf = 1
loop1: DO
ALLOCATE(alle(start))
loop2: DO n = 1,start
alle(n)= MODULO(start,n)
END DO loop2
IF (minval(alle) /= 0) THEN ! This is what it seems to ignore.
plauf= plauf + 1
pzahlen(plauf) = start
PRINT *, plauf
END IF
start = start + 1
IF (plauf == eingabe) then
EXIT
END IF
PRINT *, alle
DEALLOCATE(alle)
END DO loop1
PRINT *, "prime numbers:" , pzahlen(1:input)
END PROGRAM Primzahlen
I use the gfortran compiler and write it in Emacs if that helps to know.
It's not ignoring it, it executes correctly:
loop2: DO n = 1,start
alle(n)= MODULO(start,n)
END DO loop2
It doesn't matter what start is, alle(1) will always be zero, as every integer is evenly divisible by 1. That means that minval(alle) will also always be zero, which means that the condition minval(alle) /= 0 is never true, and the statement will never execute.
Added: The last value, alle(start), will also be zero, as every number is evenly divisible by itself.

Compiling Fortran IV code with Fortran 77 compiler

I have a code in Fortran IV that I need to run. I was told to try to compile it in Fortran 77 and fix the error. So I named the file with a .f extension and tried to compile it with gfortran. I got the next error referring to the Fortran IV function copied below:
abel.f:432.24:
REAL FUNCTION DGDT*8(IX,NV,XNG,FNG,GNG,X)
1
Error: Expected formal argument list in function definition at (1)
Since I'm not too familiar with Fortran I'd appreciate if someone can tell me how to fix this problem .
REAL FUNCTION DGDT*8(IX,NV,XNG,FNG,GNG,X) AAOK0429
C AAOK0430
C THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE VALUE OF THE DERIVATIVE OF THE AAOK0431
C G-FUNCTION FOR A SLIT TRANSMISSION FUNCTION GIVEN BY A AAOK0432
C PIECE-WISE CUBIC SPLINE , WHOSE PARAMETERS ARE AAOK0433
C CONTAINED IN XNG,FNG AND GNG. AAOK0434
C AAOK0435
IMPLICIT REAL*8(A-H,O-Z) AAOK0436
C AAOK0437
C ALLOWABLE ROUNDING ERROR ON POINTS AT EXTREAMS OF KNOT RANGE AAOK0438
C IS 2**IEPS*MAX(!XNG(1)!,!XNG(NV)!). AAOK0439
INTEGER*4 IFLG/0/,IEPS/-50/ AAOK0440
DIMENSION XNG(1),FNG(1),GNG(1) AAOK0441
C AAOK0442
C TEST WETHER POINT IN RANGE. AAOK0443
IF(X.LT.XNG(1)) GO TO 990 AAOK0444
IF(X.GT.XNG(NV)) GO TO 991 AAOK0445
C AAOK0446
C ESTIMATE KNOT INTERVAL BY ASSUMING EQUALLY SPACED KNOTS. AAOK0447
12 J=DABS(X-XNG(1))/(XNG(NV)-XNG(1))*(NV-1)+1 AAOK0448
C ENSURE CASE X=XNG(NV) GIVES J=NV-1 AAOK0449
J=MIN0(J,NV-1) AAOK0450
C INDICATE THAT KNOT INTERVAL INSIDE RANGE HAS BEEN USED. AAOK0451
IFLG=1 AAOK0452
C SEARCH FOR KNOT INTERVAL CONTAINING X. AAOK0453
IF(X.LT.XNG(J)) GO TO 2 AAOK0454
C LOOP TILL INTERVAL FOUND. AAOK0455
1 J=J+1 AAOK0456
11 IF(X.GT.XNG(J+1)) GO TO 1 AAOK0457
GO TO 7 AAOK0458
2 J=J-1 AAOK0459
IF(X.LT.XNG(J)) GO TO 2 AAOK0460
C AAOK0461
C CALCULATE SPLINE PARAMETERS FOR JTH INTERVAL. AAOK0462
7 H=XNG(J+1)-XNG(J) AAOK0463
Q1=H*GNG(J) AAOK0464
Q2=H*GNG(J+1) AAOK0465
SS=FNG(J+1)-FNG(J) AAOK0466
B=3D0*SS-2D0*Q1-Q2 AAOK0467
A=Q1+Q2-2D0*SS AAOK0468
C AAOK0469
C CALCULATE SPLINE VALUE. AAOK0470
8 Z=(X-XNG(J))/H AAOK0471
C TF=((A*Z+B)*Z+Q1)*Z+FNG(J) AAOK0472
C TG=((3.*A*Z+2.*B)*Z+Q1)/H AAOK0473
C DGDT=(TG-TF/X)/X AAOK0474
DGDT=(3.*A*Z*Z+2.*B*Z+Q1)/H AAOK0475
RETURN AAOK0476
C TEST IF X WITHIN ROUNDING ERROR OF XNG(1). AAOK0477
990 IF(X.LE.XNG(1)-2D0**IEPS*DMAX1(DABS(XNG(1)),DABS(XNG(NV)))) GO AAOK0478
1 TO 99 AAOK0479
J=1 AAOK0480
GO TO 7 AAOK0481
C TEST IF X WITHIN ROUNDING ERROR OF XNG(NV). AAOK0482
991 IF(X.GE.XNG(NV)+2D0**IEPS*DMAX1(DABS(XNG(1)),DABS(XNG(NV)))) GO AAOK0483
1 TO 99 AAOK0484
J=NV-1 AAOK0485
GO TO 7 AAOK0486
99 IFLG=0 AAOK0487
C FUNCTION VALUE SET TO ZERO FOR POINTS OUTSIDE THE RANGE. AAOK0488
DGDT=0D0 AAOK0489
RETURN AAOK0490
END AAOK0491
This doesn't look so bad. Modern compilers still accept the real*8 syntax although it isn't standard. So you should (as mentioned) replace the line
REAL FUNCTION DGDT*8(IX,NV,XNG,FNG,GNG,X) AAOK0429
with
REAL*8 FUNCTION DGDT(IX,NV,XNG,FNG,GNG,X) AAOK0429
which compiled successfully for me using gfortran 4.6.2 using gfortran -c DGDT.f.
Good luck, and be on the lookout for other problems. Just because the code compiles does not mean it is running the same way it was designed!
Not really an answer, see the one from Ross. But I just can't stand the requirement for fixed form. Here is how this code probably would look like in F90 with free form:
function DGDT(IX, NV, XNG, FNG, GNG, X)
! THIS FUNCTION COMPUTES THE VALUE OF THE DERIVATIVE OF THE
! G-FUNCTION FOR A SLIT TRANSMISSION FUNCTION GIVEN BY A
! PIECE-WISE CUBIC SPLINE, WHOSE PARAMETERS ARE
! CONTAINED IN XNG,FNG AND GNG.
implicit none
integer, parameter :: rk = selected_real_kind(15)
integer :: ix, nv
real(kind=rk) :: dgdt
real(kind=rk) :: xng(nv)
real(kind=rk) :: fng(nv)
real(kind=rk) :: gng(nv)
real(kind=rk) :: x
! ALLOWABLE ROUNDING ERROR ON POINTS AT EXTREAMS OF KNOT RANGE
! IS 2**IEPS*MAX(!XNG(1)!,!XNG(NV)!).
integer, parameter :: ieps = -50
integer, save :: iflg = 0
integer :: j
real(kind=rk) :: tolerance
real(kind=rk) :: H
real(kind=rk) :: A, B
real(kind=rk) :: Q1, Q2
real(kind=rk) :: SS
real(kind=rk) :: Z
tolerance = 2.0_rk**IEPS * MAXVAL(ABS(XNG([1,NV])))
! TEST WETHER POINT IN RANGE.
if ((X < XNG(1) - tolerance) .or. (X > XNG(NV) + tolerance)) then
! FUNCTION VALUE SET TO ZERO FOR POINTS OUTSIDE THE RANGE.
iflg = 0
DGDT = 0.0_rk
return
end if
! ESTIMATE KNOT INTERVAL BY ASSUMING EQUALLY SPACED KNOTS.
J = abs(x-xng(1)) / (xng(nv)-xng(1)) * (nv-1) + 1
! ENSURE CASE X=XNG(NV) GIVES J=NV-1
J = MIN(J,NV-1)
! INDICATE THAT KNOT INTERVAL INSIDE RANGE HAS BEEN USED.
IFLG = 1
! SEARCH FOR KNOT INTERVAL CONTAINING X.
do
if ( (x >= xng(j)) .or. (j==1) ) EXIT
j = j-1
! LOOP TILL INTERVAL FOUND.
end do
do
if ( (x <= xng(j+1)) .or. (j==nv-1) ) EXIT
j = j+1
! LOOP TILL INTERVAL FOUND.
end do
! CALCULATE SPLINE PARAMETERS FOR JTH INTERVAL.
H = XNG(J+1) - XNG(J)
Q1 = H*GNG(J)
Q2 = H*GNG(J+1)
SS = FNG(J+1) - FNG(J)
B = 3.0_rk*SS - 2.0_rk*Q1 - Q2
A = Q1 + Q2 - 2.0_rk*SS
! CALCULATE SPLINE VALUE.
Z = (X-XNG(J))/H
DGDT = ( (3.0_rk*A*Z + 2.0_rk*B)*Z + Q1 ) / H
end function DGDT
Note, I did not test this in any way, also there might be some wrong guesses in there, like that ieps should be a constant. Also, I am not so sure about iflg, and the ix argument does not appear to be used at all. So I might got something wrong. For the tolerance it is better to use a factor instead of a difference and a 2.**-50 will not change the value for a the maxval in a double precision number here. Also note, I am using some other F90 features besides the free form now.
DISCLAIMER: Just mentioning a possible solution here, not recommending it...
As much as all other answers are valid and that supporting some Fortran IV code as is is a nightmare, you still might want / need to avoid touching it as much as possible. And since Fortran IV had some strange behaviours when it comes to loops for example (with loops always cycled at least once IINM), using a "proper" Fortran IV compiler might be a "good" idea.
Anyway, all this to say that the Intel compiler for example, supports Fortran IV natively with the -f66 compiler switch, and I'm sure other compilers do as well. This may be worth checking.

How to find statistical mode in Fortran

I'm trying to write a program to find the mean, median, mode of an integer array but am having some complications in finding the mode. The following is the code that I've written so far.
First, the program will prompt user to enter a value for the number of integers that will be entered followed by request to enter that number of integers. The integers are then sorted in ascending order and the mean and median are found.
The problem I am having is when I try to get the mode. I am able to count the number of occurrence of a repetitive value. By finding the value with highest occurrence, we'll be able to find Mode. But I am unsure how to do this. Is there any intrinsic function in Fortran to calculate number of occurrence of input values and the value with highest occurrence?
PROGRAM STATISTICS
!Created by : Rethnaraj Rambabu
IMPLICIT NONE
REAL, DIMENSION(:), ALLOCATABLE:: VAL
REAL TEMP, MEDIAN
REAL EVEN, MEAN, SUM, FMODE
INTEGER N, I,J
WRITE(*,*)' WHAT IS THE VALUE FOR N? '
READ(*,*) N
ALLOCATE(VAL(N))
WRITE(*,*) 'ENTER THE NUMBERS'
OPEN(1,FILE='FILE.TXT')
READ(1,*)(VAL(I),I=1,N)
CLOSE(1)
WRITE(*,*) VAL
!/---FOR SORTING----/!
DO I=1,N-1
DO J=1,N-1
IF(VAL(J) > VAL(J+1)) THEN
TEMP=VAL(J)
VAL(J)=VAL(J+1)
VAL(J+1)=TEMP
END IF
END DO
END DO
WRITE(*,*) VAL
!/-----MEDIAN----/!
IF ((N/2*2) /= N) THEN
MEDIAN=VAL((N+1)/2)
ELSE IF ((N/2*2) == N) THEN
EVEN= (VAL(N/2)+VAL((N+2)/2))
MEDIAN=EVEN/2
END IF
WRITE(*,*)'MEDIAN=', MEDIAN
!/----MEAN----/
SUM=0
DO I=1,N
SUM=SUM+VAL(I)
END DO
MEAN=SUM/N
WRITE(*,*)'MEAN=', MEAN
!/------MODE----/
FMODE=1
DO I=1,N-1
IF (VAL(I) == VAL(I+1)) THEN
FMODE=FMODE+1
END IF
END DO
WRITE(*,*)FMODE
END PROGRAM
The FILE.TXT contains
10 8 1 9 8 9 9 7 5 9 3 5 6
But, how to do that? Or is there any intrinsic function in Fortran to calculate number of occurrence of input values and the value with highest occurrence.
No, there is not. You'll have to calculate the mode by hand.
The following code should work (on a sorted array):
FMODE = VAL(1)
COUNT = 1
CURRENTCOUNT = 1
DO I = 2, N
! We are going through the loop looking for values == VAL(I-1)...
IF (VAL(I) == VAL(I-1)) THEN
! We spotted another VAL(I-1), so increment the count.
CURRENTCOUNT = CURRENTCOUNT + 1
ELSE
! There are no more VAL(I-1)
IF (CURRENTCOUNT > COUNT) THEN
! There were more elements of value VAL(I-1) than of value FMODE
COUNT = CURRENTCOUNT
FMODE = VAL(I-1)
END IF
! Next we are looking for values == VAL(I), so far we have spotted one...
CURRENTCOUNT = 1
END
END DO
IF (CURRENTCOUNT > COUNT) THEN
! This means there are more elements of value VAL(N) than of value FMODE.
FMODE = VAL(N)
END IF
Explanation:
We keep the best-so-far mode in the FMODE variable, and the count of the FMODE in the COUNT variable. As we step through the array we count the number of hits that are equal to what we are looking at now, in the CURRENTCOUNT variable.
If the next item we look at is equal to the previous, we simply increment the CURRENTCOUNT. If it's different, then we need to reset the CURRENTCOUNT, because we will now count the number of duplications of the next element.
Before we reset the CURRENTCOUNT we check if it's bigger than the previous best result, and if it is, we overwrite the previous best result (the FMODE and COUNT variables) with the new best results (whatever is at VAL(I) and CURRENTCOUNT), before we continue.
This reset doesn't happen at the end of the loop, so I inserted another check at the end in case the most frequent element happens to be the final element of the loop. In that case we overwrite FMODE, like we would have done in the loop.
It is a bit lengthy, you could probably get rid of the optional argument, but there is an example provided here. They use the quick sort algorithm as implemented here.
Alternatively, you could use
integer function mode(arr) result(m)
implicit none
integer, dimension(:), intent(in) :: arr
! Local variables
integer, dimension(:), allocatable :: counts
integer :: i, astat
character(len=128) :: error_str
! Initialise array to count occurrences of each value.
allocate(counts(minval(arr):maxval(arr)), stat=astat, errmsg=error_str)
if (astat/=0) then
print'("Allocation of counts array failed.")'
print*, error_str
end if
counts = 0
! Loop over inputted array, counting occurrence of each value.
do i=1,size(arr)
counts(arr(i)) = counts(arr(i)) + 1
end do
! Finally, find the mode
m = minloc(abs(counts - maxval(counts)),1)
end function mode
This doesn't require any sorting.