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  2002

COMP-FORTRAN-90 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Automatic deallocation in Fortran 95

From:

Richard Maine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Fortran 90 List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 22 Jun 2002 09:47:33 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (49 lines)

Aleksandar Donev writes:
 > > The SAVE attribute is what you want.
 >
 > Not really. The example is trying to emulate the C malloc function--this
 > returns a fresh *new* block of memory each time it is called. With SAVE, the
 > allocatable will not be deallocated automatically, but then the allocatable
 > will keep it's allocation status to the same piece of memory.
 >
 > So really all I need is an array pointer, as this is the only way to avoid the
 > "self-cleaning-up" that F95 would otherwise do.

I'm a little confused...not that this is unprecedented.  It seems like
you are saying both that you don't want the automatic deallocation
and that you also do want it.

If you want it to automatically deallocate, then don't use SAVE.
If you do want it to deallocate, then do use SAVE.  If you
used SAVE (so as to avoid the automatic deallocation) and
you want to now change the allocation, then deallocate the old
one (since that won't have been automatically done) and
allocate a new one.  Yes, you will have to explicitly do the
deallocate in this case - it does have to be done one way or
another, either automatically or explicitly.

Now, if you want to have a new allocation in addition to the old
one, rather than replacing the old one, then yes, you'll have
to use pointers.  Perhaps this is the point that I missed.
This is a fundamental difference between pointers
and allocatables.  The difference is more basic than issues of
save.  Allocatables can *NEVER* have more than one allocation
at a time.  There are two choices - either it is allocated or
it is not.  There is never a possibility of having multiple
simultaneous allocations related to a single variable.

With pointers, you can freely do multiple allocations without
deallocating the old ones.  (This can lead to memory leaks if
you don't provide a way to access the old allocations via some
other pointer).  If that is what you want, then yes, you'll
need a pointer.

C's malloc acts like a pointer in this regard.  Indeed, it does
return a pointer, albeit a C one.  If you are trying to
emulate malloc, then yes, you'll have to use a pointer.

--
Richard Maine                |  Good judgment comes from experience;
[log in to unmask]   |  experience comes from bad judgment.
                             |        -- Mark Twain

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2023
February 2023
November 2022
September 2022
February 2022
January 2022
June 2021
November 2020
September 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
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

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

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