public inbox for fortran@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
To: Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com>,
	"fortran@gcc.gnu.org" <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>,
	gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Alessandro Fanfarillo <alessandro.fanfarillo@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Benson <abenson@carnegiescience.edu>
Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR37336 (Finalization) - [F03] Finish derived-type finalization
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 22:09:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e845122e-12e5-78aa-44ec-37bb796996bd@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGkQGiKtW7Gm8ebyL95qkZEGhcQpkRgT2buT0K0MmqU_sx5oig@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Paul,

thanks for attacking this.

I haven't looked at the actual patch, only tried to check the new
testcases with other compilers.

Am 03.02.22 um 18:14 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
> I have tried to interpret F2018 7.5.6.2 and 7.5.6.3 as well as possible.
> This is not always straightforward and has involved a lot of head
> scratching! I have used the Intel compiler as a litmus test for the
> outcomes. This was largely motivated by the observation that, in the user
> survey conducted by Steve Lionel, gfortran and ifort are often used
> together . Therefore, quite aside from wishing to comply with the standard
> as far as possible, it is more than reasonable that the two compilers
> comply. On application of this patch, only exception to this is the
> treatment of finalization of arrays of extended types, where the Intel
> takes "If the entity is of extended type and the parent type is
> finalizable, the parent component is finalized" such that the parent
> component is finalized one element at a time, whereas gfortran finalises
> the parent components as an array. I strongly suspect that, from reading
> 7.5.6.2 paragraphs 2 and 3 closely, that ifort has it right. However, this
> is another issue to come back to in the future.

Could you specify which version of Intel you tried?

Testcase finalize_38.f90 fails for me with ifort 2021.5.0 with:

131

This test also fails with crayftn 11 & 12 and nagfor 7.0,
but in a different place.

(Also finalize_45.f90 fails with that version with something that
looks like memory corruption, but that might be just a compiler bug.)

Thanks,
Harald

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>
To: fortran@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR37336 (Finalization) - [F03] Finish derived-type finalization
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 22:09:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e845122e-12e5-78aa-44ec-37bb796996bd@gmx.de> (raw)
Message-ID: <20220207210941.SUXGmmwR-ppBbfo1sDtUxlIeJKD55X1KKQtT8fGh2ag@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGkQGiKtW7Gm8ebyL95qkZEGhcQpkRgT2buT0K0MmqU_sx5oig@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Paul,

thanks for attacking this.

I haven't looked at the actual patch, only tried to check the new
testcases with other compilers.

Am 03.02.22 um 18:14 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
> I have tried to interpret F2018 7.5.6.2 and 7.5.6.3 as well as possible.
> This is not always straightforward and has involved a lot of head
> scratching! I have used the Intel compiler as a litmus test for the
> outcomes. This was largely motivated by the observation that, in the user
> survey conducted by Steve Lionel, gfortran and ifort are often used
> together . Therefore, quite aside from wishing to comply with the standard
> as far as possible, it is more than reasonable that the two compilers
> comply. On application of this patch, only exception to this is the
> treatment of finalization of arrays of extended types, where the Intel
> takes "If the entity is of extended type and the parent type is
> finalizable, the parent component is finalized" such that the parent
> component is finalized one element at a time, whereas gfortran finalises
> the parent components as an array. I strongly suspect that, from reading
> 7.5.6.2 paragraphs 2 and 3 closely, that ifort has it right. However, this
> is another issue to come back to in the future.

Could you specify which version of Intel you tried?

Testcase finalize_38.f90 fails for me with ifort 2021.5.0 with:

131

This test also fails with crayftn 11 & 12 and nagfor 7.0,
but in a different place.

(Also finalize_45.f90 fails with that version with something that
looks like memory corruption, but that might be just a compiler bug.)

Thanks,
Harald


  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-07 21:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-03 17:14 Paul Richard Thomas
2022-02-07 21:09 ` Harald Anlauf [this message]
2022-02-07 21:09   ` Harald Anlauf
2022-02-08 11:22   ` Paul Richard Thomas
2022-02-08 18:29     ` Harald Anlauf
2022-02-08 18:29       ` Harald Anlauf
2022-02-09  2:35       ` Jerry D
2022-02-10 12:25       ` Paul Richard Thomas
2022-02-10 19:49         ` Harald Anlauf
2022-02-10 19:49           ` Harald Anlauf
2022-02-11  2:15           ` Jerry D
2022-02-11  9:08           ` Paul Richard Thomas
2022-02-11 21:08             ` Harald Anlauf
2022-02-11 21:08               ` Harald Anlauf
2022-02-11 21:59               ` Paul Richard Thomas
2022-02-16 18:49                 ` Paul Richard Thomas
2022-02-17 20:55                   ` Harald Anlauf
2022-02-17 20:55                     ` Harald Anlauf
2022-02-17 21:23                   ` Thomas Koenig
2022-02-18 18:06                     ` Paul Richard Thomas
2023-01-02 13:15                       ` Paul Richard Thomas
     [not found]                         ` <trinity-a4069639-4079-4f60-b928-1fec82384b1e-1672953005015@3c-app-gmx-bap48>
2023-01-05 21:14                           ` Fw: " Harald Anlauf
2023-01-06  3:08                             ` Jerry D
2023-01-06  8:33                               ` Harald Anlauf
2023-01-07 10:57                                 ` Paul Richard Thomas
2023-01-07 15:28                                   ` Thomas Koenig
2023-01-07 18:35                                     ` Paul Richard Thomas
2023-01-08 12:03                                       ` Thomas Koenig
2023-01-08 13:42                                         ` Paul Richard Thomas
2023-01-09 20:42                                   ` Aw: " Harald Anlauf
2023-01-11 20:56                                     ` Harald Anlauf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=e845122e-12e5-78aa-44ec-37bb796996bd@gmx.de \
    --to=anlauf@gmx.de \
    --cc=abenson@carnegiescience.edu \
    --cc=alessandro.fanfarillo@gmail.com \
    --cc=fortran@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).