From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-495918-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1596 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2015 15:39:03 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 1557 invoked by uid 48); 30 Aug 2015 15:38:59 -0000
From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/59398] Wrong bounds for allocatable result and for
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:39:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-59398-4-AHy92nH498@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59398-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59398-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg02060.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pault at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> That seems to be the case. For the moment, the lesson I learnt is never
> to return arrays with a lower bound different from 1.

The following variant

program return_allocatable
    implicit none

    real, allocatable :: a(:)

    real, parameter :: b(-2:4)=[1,2,3,4,5,6,7]

    a=b
    print*,lbound(a),':',ubound(a)

    deallocate(a)
    a=foo(3)
    print*,lbound(a),':',ubound(a)

contains
    function foo(n) result(res)
        integer :: n
        real, allocatable :: res(:)

        allocate(res(-3:n))

        res=n
        print *, lbound(res), ubound(res)
    end function
end program

gives (with the default -frealloc-lhs)

          -2 :           4
          -3           3
           1 :           7

Is this correct?

> This kind of sucks. Why having lower bounds different than 0 sometimes only?
> Either have them, or don't!

In Fortran the default lower bounds are always 1 and never 0.