[J3] finalization and submodule

[Bader, Reinhold]

Correcting myself: "any program unit" of course will not work, since 
e.g. in a main program one could not establish a module procedure for
the finalizer. But submodules are fine.

Cheers

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org> Im Auftrag von Bader,
> Reinhold via J3
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. Mai 2023 08:08
> An: kargl at uw.edu; General J3 interest list <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
> Cc: Bader, Reinhold <Reinhold.Bader at lrz.de>
> Betreff: Re: [J3] finalization and submodule
> 
> As far as I can see, the code is conforming. A type definition (with or without
> a finalizer) is part of the specification part of any program unit, including a
> submodule.
> 
> Cheers
> Reinhold
> ________________________________________
> Von: J3 <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org> im Auftrag von Steven G.
> Kargl via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. Mai 2023 07:49:18
> An: General J3 interest list
> Cc: Steven G. Kargl
> Betreff: Re: [J3] finalization and submodule
> 
> Is the Fortran code or invalid?  Where are the instructions for writing an
> official interpretation request?
> 
> --
> steve
> 
> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 11:59:50AM -0700, Steven G. Kargl via J3 wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I have a question about finalization and submodules that is sparked by
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97122
> > The code in question is
> >
> >    MODULE m
> >      IMPLICIT NONE
> >      INTERFACE
> >        MODULE SUBROUTINE other
> >          IMPLICIT NONE
> >        END SUBROUTINE other
> >      END INTERFACE
> >    END MODULE m
> >
> >    SUBMODULE (m) s
> >      IMPLICIT NONE
> >      TYPE :: t
> >        CONTAINS
> >          FINAL :: p
> >      END TYPE t
> >      CONTAINS
> >        SUBROUTINE p(arg)
> >          TYPE(t), INTENT(INOUT) :: arg
> >        END SUBROUTINE p
> >
> >        MODULE SUBROUTINE other
> >        END SUBROUTINE other
> >    END SUBMODULE s
> >
> > According to the bug report, gfortran and nagfor reject the code with
> > an error message of the form
> >
> >    "Error: pr97122.f90, line 14: Type T has final subroutines
> >     but is not defined in the specification part of a module"
> >
> > Intel's ifort compiles the code.
> >
> > Using 22-077r1 (22 Apr 22), I can find
> >
> >    C791  (R753) A final-subroutine-name shall be the name of a module
> >       procedure with exactly one dummy argument.  That argument shall be
> >       nonoptional and shall be a noncoarray, nonpointer, nonallocatable,
> >       nonpolymorphic variable of the derived type being defined.  All
> >       length type parameters of the dummy argument shall be assumed.
> >       The dummy argument shall not have the INTENT (OUT) or VALUE
> >       attribute.
> >
> >    3.112.4
> >    module procedure
> >    procedure defined by a module subprogram, or ...
> >
> >    3.143.3
> >    module subprogram
> >    subprogram that is contained in a module or submodule but is not
> >    an internal subprogram
> >
> >
> >    14.2.3 Submodules
> >    ...
> >    3 A submodule may provide implementations for separate module
> procedures
> >      (15.6.2.5), each of which is declared (15.4.3.2) within that submodule
> >      or one of its ancestors, and declarations and definitions of other
> >     entities that are accessible by host association in its descendants.
> >
> > AFAIC, 'subroutine p(arg)' meets at the requirement for finalization.
> > I admit that I may have missed something in chasing 'module procedure'
> > through 22-007r1.
> >
> > So, the question are
> >  'Are gfortran and nagfor correct in rejecting the code?'
> >  'Does have Intel's ifort have bug?'
> >  'Does the Fortran standard need be refined to explicitly
> >   state that derived type with a final statement can only
> >   appear in the specification part of a module?'
> >
> > --
> > Steve
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Steve