[J3] finalization and submodule

[Steven G. Kargl]

Thanks for the your insights Reinhold.  I agree that there is
a bug in gfortran and that it should compile the code I posted.

-- 
steve 

On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 09:41:47AM +0000, Bader, Reinhold wrote:
> 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

-- 
Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3950 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20230507/87aafa8e/attachment.bin>