forums.silverfrost.com

That is my understanding of AOA too. In my example, AOA should not be taking place, because b was already allocated. My assumption (which may be incorrect) was that because b's shape changed, some for ...

Hi Paul,

MANY thanks for your diligent work on this problem. Let me try the compiler switches and see what that effect is. If AOA has to be switched off, I can deal with that more easily than with ...

Understood Paul. Thanks for looking into this. I am loading a and b into the separate subprograms because typically the module contains a large number of subprograms, and I am looking to make availabl ...

Thanks Paul. I'm relieved you were able to isolate the bug. It has taken a great deal of work to locate the problem and then produce the small example.

Are you able to be more generic about what w ...

Here is an attempt to isolate the problem with the shape of an array being reassigned.
Module m1
Implicit None
Real, Dimension(:,:), Allocatable, Public :: b
Re ...

That would be interesting - if b were already allocated but got resized at the "not sure what happens here" line, that could result in some very difficult to track problems.

Many thanks to everyone's inputs. It has been helpful to know not to expect shape to "work" (if that is the correct word) when its argument is deallocated.

I don't know whether this is a ...

Indeed, I have tried CHECKMATE. But forgetting about the larger programme for now, is Shape not returning an incorrect result even in the simple example? Size also returns 2 after i is deallocated.

Hi Paul,

I seem to get the same output ("2 F") regardless of which compiler options I use.

In the following program, FTN95 remembers the shape of the allocatable array after it is deallocated. In other compilers the call to Shape generates a run-time error.

Program p
Integer, Dimensio ...

Paul, if the BLOCK structure is a lot of work, it is not a high priority for me. I'll use it if it's there, but I am not feeling much constrained without it.

When compiling clrwin$.f95 with version 8.97 a new error message appears at a few lines:
error 437 - No generic spec on enclosing INTERFACE BLOCK
The compilation appears to proceed ok by adding igno ...

I believe that DO FORALL has been superseded by DO CONCURRENT

I notice that Paul requested us on Dec 05, 2022 to stop posting more suggestions to the "Fortran 2003 and 2008 features" topic https://forums.silverfrost.com/viewtopic.php?t=3480&start=1 ...

I've been asked to implement FLUSH into a program. FLUSH is a Fortran 2003 feature. I see that FTN95 already has FLUSH_FORTRAN_HANDLE@, which I think does the same thing. However, FLUSH_FORTRAN_HANDLE ...