DPD200256205 Have -warn unused warn about unused ONLY names

[andrew_4619]

I recall discussing this in a thread somewhere but I can't seem to find it, Anyway this document

https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/520142

Suggests "DPD200256205 Have -warn unused warn about unused ONLY names"  is in the new release. I took this to mean that:

USE FRED, ONLY: bill, alan, peter

would throw a warning if for example alan was not used in the scope of the USE. I was quite looking forward to this feature, did it fall off the list at some point or have I misunderstood?

[FortranFan]

I'm looking forward to this feature too and my expectation is also along the lines mentioned by app4619 in the original post.

But I didn't notice such a feature in the 2015 Beta version, so it'll be surprising if it is available in the final release.

[Lorri_M_Intel]

This was added late in the Beta cycle, and should be in the final product

Are you guys seeing something different?

           --Lorri

[andrew_4619]

Lorri Menard (Intel) wrote:

This was added late in the Beta cycle, and should be in the final product

Are you guys seeing something different?

           --Lorri

I do not seem to be seeing that feature. I was expecting to have quite a number of warnings and when I didn't I deliberately created some lines that should have given a warning. Try a simple test case. 

[Lorri_M_Intel]

Hmm.   Our regression test looks like this:

module cq256205mymod

integer a, b, c, x

end module cq256205mymod

program cq256205
use cq256205mymod, only: a,b,c
integer d

a = 1
b = 2
print *, "success"
end program

and does issue two warnings when compiled as:

ifort /warn:unused cq256205.f90

One message for "d"  one message for "c"

What is different about your example?

[andrew_4619]

Yes that example works for me also. The example I tried where in a large application with many modules etc. There are also different build options e.g. I only check the warning on debug builds. I will investigate further and report back.

[andrew_4619]

It does not warn when the "unused only" is within a module procedure it would seem. No warning for "c". As all my routines are usually within modules that appears to be why I get no warnings.

module cq256205mymod
    implicit none
    integer a, b, c, x
end module cq256205mymod
    
module fred
    contains
    subroutine bill
        use cq256205mymod, only: a,b,c
        implicit none
        integer f
        a = 1
        b = 2
        print *, "success"    
    end subroutine bill   
end module fred

program cq256205
    use cq256205mymod, only: a,b  
    use fred
    implicit none
    integer d

    a = 1
    b = 2
    print *, "success"
    call bill()
end program 

1>------ Build started: Project: Console3, Configuration: Debug Win32 ------
1>Compiling with Intel(R) Visual Fortran Compiler XE 15.0.0.108 [IA-32]...
1>Console3.f90
1>C:\Users\Andrew\Documents\Cadfil\cadfil_devt_intel\Console3\Console3.f90(11): remark #7712: This variable has not been used.  
1>C:\Users\Andrew\Documents\Cadfil\cadfil_devt_intel\Console3\Console3.f90(22): remark #7712: This variable has not been used.  

[Lorri_M_Intel]

Thank you for the investigation --- I'll send that info over the wall to my colleague.

[FortranFan]

app4619 wrote:

.. As all my routines are usually within modules that appears to be why I get no warnings...

Same situation with me; almost all the code is in modules.

[andrew_4619]

Lorri Menard (Intel) wrote:

Thank you for the investigation --- I'll send that info over the wall to my colleague.

Was there any feedback on this issue ?

Regards

Andrew

[Lorri_M_Intel]

Hi Andrew --

      He acknowledged that it failed, but there's no schedule for the fix yet.

[Steven_L_Intel1]

I was just informed that the fix for this problem is expected to be in Update 1.

[andrew_4619]

Steve Lionel (Intel) wrote:

I was just informed that the fix for this problem is expected to be in Update 1.

Thanks that will be most welcome :-)

[andrew_4619]

And indeed is seems to be working in update 1!

I was pleasantly surprised and the relatively small number of warnings I got when doing a full rebuild of a large project :-)

it is nice to have some spring cleaning in your code even if it is winter.

[DavidWhite]

Depends where you are ... it's still Spring here until Monday :-)

[Steven_L_Intel1]

It's technically not winter here for another few weeks, but we did just have our first snow of the season in southern New Hampshire.

[JVanB]

Sounds like the difference between meteorological and astronomical winter. A-basin opened last month, does that make it winter here?

[andrew_4619]

module cq256205mymod
    implicit none
    integer :: a, b, c, x
end module cq256205mymod
    
module fred
    integer :: y,w
    contains
    subroutine bill
        use cq256205mymod, only: a,b,c !c unused remark #7712
        implicit none
        integer f                      !f unused remark #7712
        a = 1
        b = 2
        print *, "success"    
    end subroutine bill   
end module fred

program cq256205                       ! test for /warn:unused Fortran Compiler XE 15.0.1.148 [IA-32]
    use cq256205mymod, only: a,b  
    use fred, only: y,bill             ! bill is NOT reported as unused
    implicit none
    integer d                          ! d unused remark #7712

    a = 1
    b = 2
    y = 1
    print *, "success"
    !call bill()                       
end program

I think I spoke too soon..... I noticed some issues with this feature yesterday and have updated the test that was at #7. The problem is the line 

use fred, only: y,bill as it seems that unused applies to variablies and not module procedures.  Perhaps that was the intention?

[FortranFan]

Yes, it'll be nice if /warn:unused applies to module procedures too.

[Steven_L_Intel1]

Well, the option's documentation does say: "Determines whether warnings occur for declared variables that are never used." A procedure is not a variable. Nor is a type or an interface. I will enter a feature request that any identifier in a USE list qualify for the warning. Issue ID is DPD200365039.

[FortranFan]

See recent discussion at comp.lang.fortran: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/RedeUCqh12c

I think the warning in this case is unwaranted: thoughts?