JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90  March 2018

COMP-FORTRAN-90 March 2018

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: passing coarray actual for non-coarray dummy

From:

Anton Shterenlikht <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Fortran 90 List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:32:13 GMT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (56 lines)

Tom, Malcolm

>From: "Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101)" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>I must not be quite following the pieces here.    The procedure where “it makes no difference whether …”, should easily be passed around with an explicit interface, as it does not use coarrays.     
>
>To the extent I understand your concern, you have a _small_ number of procedures that must do different things depending on whether you are in case (1) or case (2).  This would otherwise be a poster-child for object-orientation with two subclasses, but here the fact that both subclasses must have the same interface becomes an issue.     Unfortunately, I lack enough experience with co-arrays to know if there is a way out of this.   But others in the list surely have enough experience with the overlap to comment.   (Damian?)

Thank you for the comments.

I think I remember my train of thought now, bear with me...

The use of halos in model data
typically leads to arrays with
non-default lower bounds,
e.g. the real data starts at 1
and the array starts at 1-hdepth,
where 'hdepth' is the halo depth.

Using assumed-shape dummy doesn't preserve
the bounds, which would means extra
code to operate on correct data.

Using allocatable dummy seems ideal as
I never need to worry about the bounds -
they are always the same inside the procedure
as in the calling scope.

Perhaps I abuse this facility, but
I use allocatable dummy for allocatable actual
arguments a lot, even though no change of
allocation status is intended in most procedures.

I think I also read somewhere that, at least
with some compilers, an allocatable dummy
is better performing than assumed-shape array.
Maybe I'm wrong here?

So - I really like allocatable dummy,
but passing allocatable coarray actual
to an allocatable dummy is illegal, as Bill
pointed out, 15.5.2.6p3.

So as Malcolm suggested I need to have
2 separate modules, one for option (1) and
another for option (2), which is essentially
code duplication, as the only change (not true,
there are a few other changes) is that some
  allocatable dummy non-coarray
declarations become
  allocatable dummy coarray
declarations.

Thanks again

Anton

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager