On 19.09.22 22:50, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 19/09/2022 à 21:46, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
Am 18.09.22 um 22:55 schrieb Mikael Morin:
Le 18/09/2022 à 20:32, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
Assumed shape will be on the easy side,
while assumed size likely needs to be excluded for clobbering.
Isn’t it the converse that is true?
Assumed shape can be non-contiguous so have to be excluded, but assumed
size are contiguous, so valid candidates for clobbering. No?
I really was referring here to *dummies*, as in the following example:
program p
integer :: a(4)
a = 1
call sub (a(1), 2)
print *, a
contains
subroutine sub (b, k)
integer, intent(in) :: k
integer, intent(out) :: b(*)
! integer, intent(out) :: b(k)
if (k > 2) b(k) = k
end subroutine sub
end program p
Assumed size (*) is just a contiguous hunk of memory of possibly
unknown size, which can be zero. So you couldn't set a clobber
for the a(1) actual argument.
Couldn't you clobber A entirely? If no element of B is initialized in
SUB, well, A has undefined values on return from SUB. That's how
INTENT(OUT) works.
Yes, I think so - you are passing the starting element of an array
to an assumed-size array via storage association rules.
It has to be an explicit interface, of course, otherwise it is
unclear if an array or an array element is passed.
Best regards
Thomas
