From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-371053-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20417 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2011 12:48:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 20402 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Oct 2011 12:48:56 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:48:34 +0000
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/47023] C_Sizeof: Rejects valid code
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:48:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-47023-4-fqp6JQqxBa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47023-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47023-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg01797.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023

--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-18 12:48:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The question is also how SIZEOF should act on data pointers:
> Output:
>                     2
>                     2
> Should it give the size of the pointer itself, or the size of the object it
> points to?

The target/pointee. Reasoning: For your example, g95, gfortran, ifort and
pathf95 all print "2". That's also what gfortran claims to do at 
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/SIZEOF.html

Regarding (comment 19, comment 20):
  print *,sizeof(proc)    ! (1) -- prints 1
  print *,sizeof(pp)      ! (2) -- prints 1
  print *,sizeof(pp(0.))  ! (3) -- prints 4

ifort rejects (1) and (2) and returns "4" for (3). I think gfortran should do
likewise. Returning the pointee size for scalar variables but the pointer size
of functions is also a bit odd.

 * * *

For Cray pointers/pointees:
  use iso_c_binding, only: c_sizeof
  implicit none
  integer(2) :: a
  pointer (aptr, a)
  print *,sizeof (a)   ! , c_sizeof (a)
  print *,sizeof (aptr)! , c_sizeof (aptr)
  end

This program fails to compile for c_sizeof while the sizeof version prints "2"
and "8", which I think is OK.