Is this legal F2003?
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: integer type returned by size
Next: Diazepam shipped overnight without a prescription, buy Diazepam online next day delivery
From: Salvatore on 23 Mar 2010 07:05 Hello, The simple file attached sends one compiler into an ICE, while it compiles fine on another. Specifically, it is the USE A_MOD that brings in indirectly the two type extensions together. If I comment the last three lines (i.e. the MODULE T stuff) it compiles fine. I don't see anything illegal here; any kind expert can confirm this? Thanks a lot in advance Salvatore ------------------ tt.f03 -------------------------- module base_mod type base_type integer :: i contains procedure, pass(a) :: geti end type base_type contains subroutine geti(a,i) class(base_type) :: a integer :: i i = a%i end subroutine geti end module base_mod module s_mod use base_mod type, extends(base_type) :: s_type real(kind(1.e0)) :: r contains procedure, pass(a) :: getr => s_getr end type s_type contains subroutine s_getr(a,r) class(s_type) :: a real(kind(1.e0)) :: r r = a%r end subroutine s_getr end module s_mod module d_mod use base_mod type, extends(base_type) :: d_type real(kind(1.d0)) :: r contains procedure, pass(a) :: getr => d_getr end type d_type contains subroutine d_getr(a,r) class(d_type) :: a real(kind(1.d0)) :: r r = a%r end subroutine d_getr end module d_mod module a_mod use s_mod use d_mod end module a_mod module t use a_mod end module t
From: Janus Weil on 23 Mar 2010 09:04 Hi Salvatore, > The simple file attached sends one compiler into an ICE, while it > compiles fine on another. could you tell us which compiler you're talking about? It seems gfortran and ifort compile it just fine. > Specifically, it is the USE A_MOD that > brings in indirectly the two type extensions together. If I comment > the last three lines (i.e. the MODULE T stuff) it compiles fine. That smells like a compiler bug if you ask me. > I don't see anything illegal here; any kind expert can confirm this? Not being too much of an expert, and not having stared at your code too hard yet, I don't see anything illegal right away. Cheers, Janus
From: Salvatore on 23 Mar 2010 09:07 On 23 Mar, 14:04, Janus Weil <jaydu...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi Salvatore, > > > The simple file attached sends one compiler into an ICE, while it > > compiles fine on another. > > could you tell us which compiler you're talking about? It seems > gfortran and ifort compile it just fine. > NAG too compiles fine. > > Specifically, it is the USE A_MOD that > > brings in indirectly the two type extensions together. If I comment > > the last three lines (i.e. the MODULE T stuff) it compiles fine. > > That smells like a compiler bug if you ask me. > Yes, but borrowing the terminology of gcc bugzilla, is it ICE-on-valid or ICE-on-invalid? I think the first. Salvatore
From: Paul Thomas on 23 Mar 2010 11:47 On Mar 23, 12:05 pm, Salvatore <sfilipp...(a)uniroma2.it> wrote: > Hello, > The simple file attached sends one compiler into an ICE, while it > compiles fine on another. Specifically, it is the USE A_MOD that > brings in indirectly the two type extensions together. If I comment > the last three lines (i.e. the MODULE T stuff) it compiles fine. > I don't see anything illegal here; any kind expert can confirm this? > Thanks a lot in advance > Salvatore Hi Salvatore, Regardless of the correctness, if a compiler ICEs it is always a bug :-) Having just tested it on gfortran, I conclude that we either have a regression or that it is the one that lets it through. Your testcase looks to be compliant with the standard to me. If the derived types were ambiguous in any way, gfortran would, of course, complain. Ciao Paul
From: Salvatore on 23 Mar 2010 12:35
On 23 Mar, 16:47, Paul Thomas <paul.richard.tho...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 12:05 pm, Salvatore <sfilipp...(a)uniroma2.it> wrote: > > > Hello, > > The simple file attached sends one compiler into an ICE, while it > > compiles fine on another. Specifically, it is the USE A_MOD that > > brings in indirectly the two type extensions together. If I comment > > the last three lines (i.e. the MODULE T stuff) it compiles fine. > > I don't see anything illegal here; any kind expert can confirm this? > > Thanks a lot in advance > > Salvatore > > Hi Salvatore, > > Regardless of the correctness, if a compiler ICEs it is always a > bug :-) > Yes, yes. The compiler in question is XLF V12. This should be fixed with XLF 13, however I don't have access to it (now). Given that an ICE is an ICE, my point is that if the code is valid I can complain louder, if it is invalid I also need to fix my code. I think it is valid, because I can see no reason why an additional USE layer should change the compliance... Cheers Salvatore |