Prev: reading config file
Next: IMSL, NAG Fortran Library vs. Open Source libraries
From: steve on 16 Sep 2009 22:17
On Sep 16, 6:28 pm, Hifi-Comp <wenbinyu.hea...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 1:25 pm, steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Don't use 'INTRINSIC SIN' in this code.  It doesn't do what you
> > think it does.
>
>
> What INTRINSIC does for us in addition to pass a procedure name as an
> argument?

When you put "intrinsic sin" in your code, you are telling the Fortran
processor that when it encounters the symbol 'sin' that it is the
intrinsic
procedure defined in the standard. You, as the programmer writing a
program that a compiler will compile, cannot write an intrinsic
procedure
it is entity provided by the Fortran processor.

I'll also note that you may not need to declare a procedure as
'intrinsic'
to pass it as an actual argument to another procedure. You may, in
fact,
need to declare it as 'external' or you may provide an explicit
interface.

--
steve
From: Hifi-Comp on 17 Sep 2009 17:25
On Sep 16, 11:27 pm, steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 8:09 pm, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
> > steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> > > When you put "intrinsic sin" in your code, you are telling the Fortran
> > > processor that when it encounters the symbol 'sin' that it is the
> > > intrinsic procedure defined in the standard. You, as the programmer writing a
> > > program that a compiler will compile, cannot write an intrinsic
> > > procedure it is entity provided by the Fortran processor.
>
> > Well, that was what it did in f77. In f90 and later it is more
> > complicated because of generic resolution rules.
>
> Given that Hifi-comp is modifying BLAS from netlib and given
> Hifi-comp's post of the last few days, the intricacies to which
> you elude ...
>
> > You can, in fact, extend the generic sin with user-written specifics.
> > You can even override some of the standard's specifics. The details of
> > generic resolution, including how it is affected by a declaration like
> > "INTRINSIC SIN" are complicated - enough so that I don't have them
> > memorized. And no, I don't feel like trying to describe them fully here..
> > Doing a full description is a lot of work; I know because I did that
> > once (insert self-promoting pitch for book).
>
> > Fortunately, most of the time it is simple and you don't need the full
> > rules. But if you really do want the full story, I don't think it is
> > accurately summarized by the above.
>
> ... are probably irrelevant.
>
> --
> steve

Thanks a lot Steve. In fact, what I am trying to do is not to avoid
modifying BLAS if at all possible, but let it do the math of the new
data structure I defined. I myself never used the INTRINSIC statement
before. So the more relevant question is: can I just simply delete the
INTRINSIC statement if the function is overloaded to the new data
type? Or can I simply change the statement to another statement and it
will not have any side effects? I am an engineer, and trying to dig
out the details in the standard making my head big. It is way beyond
my comprehension.
From: steve on 17 Sep 2009 17:46
On Sep 17, 2:25 pm, Hifi-Comp <wenbinyu.hea...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 11:27 pm, steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 8:09 pm, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
> > > steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > When you put "intrinsic sin" in your code, you are telling the Fortran
> > > > processor that when it encounters the symbol 'sin' that it is the
> > > > intrinsic procedure defined in the standard. You, as the programmer writing a
> > > > program that a compiler will compile, cannot write an intrinsic
> > > > procedure it is entity provided by the Fortran processor.
>
> > > Well, that was what it did in f77. In f90 and later it is more
> > > complicated because of generic resolution rules.
>
> > Given that Hifi-comp is modifying BLAS from netlib and given
> > Hifi-comp's post of the last few days, the intricacies to which
> > you elude ...
>
> > > You can, in fact, extend the generic sin with user-written specifics.
> > > You can even override some of the standard's specifics. The details of
> > > generic resolution, including how it is affected by a declaration like
> > > "INTRINSIC SIN" are complicated - enough so that I don't have them
> > > memorized. And no, I don't feel like trying to describe them fully here.
> > > Doing a full description is a lot of work; I know because I did that
> > > once (insert self-promoting pitch for book).
>
> > > Fortunately, most of the time it is simple and you don't need the full
> > > rules. But if you really do want the full story, I don't think it is
> > > accurately summarized by the above.
>
> > ... are probably irrelevant.
>
> > --
> > steve
>
> Thanks a lot Steve. In fact, what I am trying to do is not to avoid
> modifying BLAS if at all possible, but let it do the math of the new
> data structure I defined. I myself never used the INTRINSIC statement
> before. So the more relevant question is: can I just simply delete the
> INTRINSIC statement if the function is overloaded to the new data
> type? Or can I simply change the statement to another statement and it
> will not have any side effects? I am an engineer, and trying to dig
> out the details in the standard making my head big. It is way beyond
> my comprehension.

The simple thing to do is to remove INTRINSIC SIN from DDOT
and see what happens.

troutmask:sgk[261] gfc4x -o z dnad.f90 test1.f90 blas.f
troutmask:sgk[262] ./z
0.84147098480789650 0.54030230586813977

PS: If it's of any comfort, I also get headaches after reading the
Standard.

--
steve
From: Hifi-Comp on 17 Sep 2009 20:11
On Sep 17, 5:46 pm, steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2:25 pm, Hifi-Comp <wenbinyu.hea...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 11:27 pm, steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 8:09 pm, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
> > > > steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > When you put "intrinsic sin" in your code, you are telling the Fortran
> > > > > processor that when it encounters the symbol 'sin' that it is the
> > > > > intrinsic procedure defined in the standard. You, as the programmer writing a
> > > > > program that a compiler will compile, cannot write an intrinsic
> > > > > procedure it is entity provided by the Fortran processor.
>
> > > > Well, that was what it did in f77. In f90 and later it is more
> > > > complicated because of generic resolution rules.
>
> > > Given that Hifi-comp is modifying BLAS from netlib and given
> > > Hifi-comp's post of the last few days, the intricacies to which
> > > you elude ...
>
> > > > You can, in fact, extend the generic sin with user-written specifics.
> > > > You can even override some of the standard's specifics. The details of
> > > > generic resolution, including how it is affected by a declaration like
> > > > "INTRINSIC SIN" are complicated - enough so that I don't have them
> > > > memorized. And no, I don't feel like trying to describe them fully here.
> > > > Doing a full description is a lot of work; I know because I did that
> > > > once (insert self-promoting pitch for book).
>
> > > > Fortunately, most of the time it is simple and you don't need the full
> > > > rules. But if you really do want the full story, I don't think it is
> > > > accurately summarized by the above.
>
> > > ... are probably irrelevant.
>
> > > --
> > > steve
>
> > Thanks a lot Steve. In fact, what I am trying to do is not to avoid
> > modifying BLAS if at all possible, but let it do the math of the new
> > data structure I defined. I myself never used the INTRINSIC statement
> > before. So the more relevant question is: can I just simply delete the
> > INTRINSIC statement if the function is overloaded to the new data
> > type? Or can I simply change the statement to another statement and it
> > will not have any side effects? I am an engineer, and trying to dig
> > out the details in the standard making my head big. It is way beyond
> > my comprehension.
>
> The simple thing to do is to remove INTRINSIC SIN from DDOT
> and see what happens.
>
> troutmask:sgk[261] gfc4x -o z dnad.f90 test1.f90 blas.f
> troutmask:sgk[262] ./z
>   0.84147098480789650       0.54030230586813977
>
> PS: If it's of any comfort, I also get headaches after reading the
> Standard.
>
> --
> steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Steve,

Thanks for your comfort. The code I provided is not real. In the real
blas.for, there are several INTRINSIC statements. It might not be
possible for me to exhaust all the possibilities. Hence I want to know
what INTRINSIC does in addition to pass a intrinsic procedure as an
argument. Note, Compaq Visual Fortran has no complains about the
INTRINSIC statement and the compiled code behaves nicely. In other
words, how does CVF handle this situation.
From: steve on 17 Sep 2009 22:02
On Sep 17, 5:11 pm, Hifi-Comp <wenbinyu.hea...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 5:46 pm, steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 2:25 pm, Hifi-Comp <wenbinyu.hea...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 11:27 pm, steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 16, 8:09 pm, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
>
> > > > > steve <kar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > When you put "intrinsic sin" in your code, you are telling the Fortran
> > > > > > processor that when it encounters the symbol 'sin' that it is the
> > > > > > intrinsic procedure defined in the standard. You, as the programmer writing a
> > > > > > program that a compiler will compile, cannot write an intrinsic
> > > > > > procedure it is entity provided by the Fortran processor.
>
> > > > > Well, that was what it did in f77. In f90 and later it is more
> > > > > complicated because of generic resolution rules.
>
> > > > Given that Hifi-comp is modifying BLAS from netlib and given
> > > > Hifi-comp's post of the last few days, the intricacies to which
> > > > you elude ...
>
> > > > > You can, in fact, extend the generic sin with user-written specifics.
> > > > > You can even override some of the standard's specifics. The details of
> > > > > generic resolution, including how it is affected by a declaration like
> > > > > "INTRINSIC SIN" are complicated - enough so that I don't have them
> > > > > memorized. And no, I don't feel like trying to describe them fully here.
> > > > > Doing a full description is a lot of work; I know because I did that
> > > > > once (insert self-promoting pitch for book).
>
> > > > > Fortunately, most of the time it is simple and you don't need the full
> > > > > rules. But if you really do want the full story, I don't think it is
> > > > > accurately summarized by the above.
>
> > > > ... are probably irrelevant.
>
> > > > --
> > > > steve
>
> > > Thanks a lot Steve. In fact, what I am trying to do is not to avoid
> > > modifying BLAS if at all possible, but let it do the math of the new
> > > data structure I defined. I myself never used the INTRINSIC statement
> > > before. So the more relevant question is: can I just simply delete the
> > > INTRINSIC statement if the function is overloaded to the new data
> > > type? Or can I simply change the statement to another statement and it
> > > will not have any side effects? I am an engineer, and trying to dig
> > > out the details in the standard making my head big. It is way beyond
> > > my comprehension.
>
> > The simple thing to do is to remove INTRINSIC SIN from DDOT
> > and see what happens.
>
> > troutmask:sgk[261] gfc4x -o z dnad.f90 test1.f90 blas.f
> > troutmask:sgk[262] ./z
> >   0.84147098480789650       0.54030230586813977
>
> > PS: If it's of any comfort, I also get headaches after reading the
> > Standard.
>
> > --
> > steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Steve,
>
> Thanks for your comfort. The code I provided is not real. In the real
> blas.for, there are several INTRINSIC statements. It might not be
> possible for me to exhaust all the possibilities. Hence I want to know
> what INTRINSIC does in addition to pass a intrinsic procedure as an
> argument. Note, Compaq Visual Fortran has no complains about the
> INTRINSIC statement and the compiled code behaves nicely. In other
> words, how does CVF handle this situation.

See my previous post. Remove the INTRINSIC statments.

--
steve
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: reading config file
Next: IMSL, NAG Fortran Library vs. Open Source libraries