forums.silverfrost.com

StamK · Joined: 12 Oct 2016 Posts: 162

Is this implemented fully?

For example C_F_POINTER doesn't seem to be recognised.

PaulLaidler · Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:41 pm Post subject:

StamK

Fortran 2003 ISO_C_BINDING is implemented except for the intrinsics C_ASSOCIATED, C_F_POINTER and C_F_PROCPOINTER.

PaulLaidler · Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2021 7:21 am Post subject:

StamK

Do you have code that uses C_F_POINTER. Can you post a sample?

StamK · Joined: 12 Oct 2016 Posts: 162

Sorry, somehow didn't get a notification of your reply.
The code is the one in the accepted answer
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19147743/passing-allocatable-array-from-fortran-to-c-and-malloc-it
Was trying to use malloc/free directly since we are having problems with get_storage@ etc.

PaulLaidler · Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:42 am Post subject:

StamK

If you are using only FTN95 then there will probably be a fix that we could provide. Alternatively we may be able to implement C_F_POINTER for you.

Either way we would need some sample code that illustrates what you want to do.

StamK · Joined: 12 Oct 2016 Posts: 162

We just want to develop our own malloc/free Fortran calls, and iso_c_binding allows to use the C pointers seamlessly. In any case C_F_POINTER is a very important element of iso_c_binding so it is important to get it to work.

PaulLaidler · Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:34 pm Post subject:

StamK

Can you post some code that illustrates how C_F_POINTER is used.

StamK · Joined: 12 Oct 2016 Posts: 162

Courtesy of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19147743/passing-allocatable-array-from-fortran-to-c-and-malloc-it

PaulLaidler · Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:01 am Post subject:

StamK

This code suggests to me that C_F_POINTER is equivalent to the FTN95 extension of using ABSOLUTE_ADDRESS with ALLOCATE...

ALLOCATE(array(4), ABSOLUTE_ADDRESS=p)

but I wonder why you would want to do this rather than simply call ALLOCATE(array(4)).

Also if GET_STORAGE@ does not work for you then we should look into that.

PaulLaidler · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 10:19 am Post subject:

StamK

In the next release of the FTN95 library, the 64 bit definition of GET_STORAGE@ has been improved. You have reported that GET_STORAGE@ was not working for you and this change may make a difference.

This change will be in the next release of the DLLs.

StamK · Joined: 12 Oct 2016 Posts: 162

Hi, is the implementation of C_ASSOCIATED going to happen any time soon?
Thanks

PaulLaidler · Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:46 pm Post subject:

StamK

I will put it on the wish list. I can't say when it will be implemented at the moment.

PaulLaidler · Posted: Sun May 07, 2023 9:15 am Post subject:

StamK

I have had a look at C_F_POINTER and my initial impression is that it will be a major task to add it to FTN95.

If you are having problems with GET_STORAGE@ then I am sure that it would be a lot quicker for us to fix that issue or for us to provide an alternative direct method for getting memory.

Please provide code that illustrates your problems when getting memory.

PaulLaidler · Posted: Sun May 07, 2023 1:57 pm Post subject:

If you are writing a program for a Windows operating system then a call to get memory will almost certainly end up with a call to the Windows API function HeapAlloc.

This will be the case, for example, if you call ALLOCATE from Fortran, GET_STORAGE@ from FTN95 or malloc from a program written in the language C.

Here is a simple FTN95 program that illustrates how to directly call HeapAlloc.