Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Beginner
2 Views

yet another bug(??) in parameterized derived type

Hi all

when running this code:

Module testmod
  Private
  Type, Public, abstract :: myroot(k)
    Integer, kind :: k
  End type myroot
  Type, Public, extends(myroot), abstract :: myvec
    Integer(kind=8) :: lb1=1,ub1
  End type myvec
  Type, Public, extends(myvec) :: myvec_int
    Integer(k), allocatable :: val(:,:)
  contains
    Procedure, Pass :: suba
  End type myvec_int
  Interface
    Module Subroutine suba(this)
      class(myvec_int(8)), Intent(inout) ::  this
    end Subroutine suba
  end Interface
End Module testmod
Program Test
  use testmod
  Implicit none
  Type(myvec_int(8)), allocatable :: a
  allocate(a)
  write(*,*) a%lb1
End Program Test

the parameterized derviced type (lb1 in myvec) looses its default initialization. a%lb1 is written out with zero. This does not happen if no procedure is bound to myvec_int. From my understanding this is a bug in 17.07 and 18.03.

cheers

0 Kudos
3 Replies
Highlighted
Valued Contributor I
2 Views

I think the program is not

I think the program is not standard compliant. Why do you try this as an interface for a module procedure? Besides this syntax in line 14/15 does not even look conform. If I change this to 

contains
 ! Interface
 !Module
  Subroutine suba (this)
    class(myvec_int(8)), Intent(inout) ::  this
  end Subroutine suba
  !end Interface

then ifort gets the expected result 1. Only then nagfor compiles the code at all and delivers 1. gfortran chokes on this. 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Valued Contributor III
2 Views

@may.ka,

@may.ka,

It's a bug in Intel Fortran compiler and it is present in the compiler 19.0 Beta version as well.  You may submit a support request at the Intel OSC.

By the way, the bug appears related to the use of the MODULE SUBROUTINE for the binding to the type myvec_int.  And some may get confused by the missing implementation for it in your original post.  Though it shouldn't and doesn't make a difference with Intel Fortran and its behavior, a clearer reproducer may help:

  

module testmod
   private
   type, public, abstract :: myroot(k)
      integer, kind :: k
   end type myroot
   type, public, extends(myroot), abstract :: myvec
      integer(kind=8) :: lb1=1, ub1
   end type myvec
   type, public, extends(myvec) :: myvec_int
      integer(k), allocatable :: val(:,:)
   contains
      procedure, pass :: suba
   end type myvec_int
   interface
      module subroutine suba(this)
         class(myvec_int(8)), intent(inout) ::  this
      end subroutine suba
   end interface
end module testmod

submodule(testmod) sm
contains
   module subroutine suba(this)
      class(myvec_int(8)), intent(inout) ::  this
      this%val = 0 ! an arbitrary instruction
   end subroutine suba
end submodule

program Test
   use testmod
   implicit none
   type(myvec_int(8)), allocatable :: a
   allocate(a)
   write(*,*) a%lb1
end program Test

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Valued Contributor I
2 Views

Ok, right, that is part of an

Ok, right, that is part of an implementation in terms of submodules. That explains why nagfor considers this to be a syntax error. 

0 Kudos