Created attachment 25881 [details] Declare a subroutine interface and use this interface in the subroutine This a regression which appeared in the last months: problem is in 4.7.0 20111119 but not in 4.7.0 20110507 In the latest version, a subroutine can not know its own interface and an error is raised about duplicate symbols (see example attached): test.f90:15.6: use myinterfaces 1 Error: 'mysub' of module 'myinterfaces', imported at (1), is also the name of the current program unit From our developer point of view, this is a very annoying regression, since we are in charge of several libraries, with hundreds of subroutines in each. We made the choice to provide all the interfaces of all the subroutines to all of them, in order to ensure a correct use of the subroutines everywhere. For each library we thus have a dedicated interface module which is used everywhere. Forbidding a subroutine to know its own interface would imply to use the statement "use only", which is definitely not well suited for large programs. Thanks for your help.
Well, that one now gets a diagnostic and didn't get one before is a change, but the question is whether it is a progression or a regression. NAG prints: Error: line 15: USE MYINTERFACES in program-unit MYSUB imports symbol MYSUB g95 prints: Module 'myinterfaces' at (1) redefines the current program unit 'mysub' pathf95 prints: "MYSUB" is the name of this program unit, therefore it must not be use associated from module "MYINTERFACES". openf95 prints: "MYSUB" is the name of this program unit, therefore it must not be use associated from module "MYINTERFACES". crayftn prints: "MYSUB" is the name of this program unit, therefore it must not be use associated from module "MYINTERFACES". While ifort prints (only with -stand f95/f03): warning #7925: An interface-block in a subprogram shall not contain an interface-body for a procedure defined by that subprogram. [MYSUB] And "pgf90 -Minfo=all" and "sunf95 -w0" simply silently accept the program. I think the program is indeed invalid - but if needed, I can check the standard. One could consider allowing it with a warning (as ifort does), but I am not sure one should.
Well, we are definitely interested in what the standard says exactly. Because if this is explicitly forbidden, we are wondering what the Fortran committee had in mind for programs using thousands of subroutines and where the programmers want to provide the interfaces for each. I just hope the official recommendation is different from defining all the subroutines as module procedures in a single 100000-lines long module...
(In reply to comment #2) > Well, we are definitely interested in what the standard says exactly. For links to the standards see: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranStandards I think the following of "11.2.2 The USE statement and use association" of Fortran 2008 should capture this: "Two or more accessible entities, other than generic interfaces or defined operators, may have the same local identifier only if the identifier is not used. Generic interfaces and defined operators are handled as described in 12.4.3.4. Except for these cases, the local identifier of any entity given accessibility by a USE statement shall differ from the local identifiers of all other entities accessible to the scoping unit." > Because if this is explicitly forbidden, we are wondering what the Fortran > committee had in mind for programs using thousands of subroutines and where > the programmers want to provide the interfaces for each. I think your idea is to "hide" the implementation (the subroutines) from the interfaces (i.e. the module itself). Well, until Fortran 2003, they had no real solution but then they created the Technical Report (TR) 19767:2005 "Enhanced Module Facilities". This TR is now part of Fortran 2008 and informally known as "submodules": There is only one important downside: So far, almost no compiler supports submodules; http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Fortran+2008+status lists only Cray. With submodules you can create a master module: module master interface MODULE SUBROUTINE sub (a,b) integer, intent(in) a, b end subroutine end interface end module master SUBMODULE (master) implementation contains MODULE SUBROUTINE sub (a,b) integer, intent(in) a, b ! < implementation > end subroutine end module implementation Variant which saves typing by leaving out the repeated variable declaration: SUBMODULE (master) implementation contains MODULE SUBROUTINE sub ! < implementation > end subroutine end module implementation * * * (In reply to comment #2) > I just hope the official recommendation is different from defining all > the subroutines as module procedures in a single 100000-lines long module... Well, you could use multiple modules for the actual implementation and then collect all of them in module master use m1 use m2 ... end module master This will automatically export all (public) procedures from the used modules such that "use master" will work. This is not as flexible as submodules but it valid and works since Fortran 90.
(In reply to comment #3) > For links to the standards see: > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranStandards Ok thank you for this link, very useful. > I think the following of "11.2.2 The USE statement and use association" of > Fortran 2008 should capture this: > > "Two or more accessible entities may have the same local identifier only if > the identifier is not used. The local identifier of any entity given > accessibility by a USE statement shall differ from the local identifiers of > all other entities accessible to the scoping unit." So basically you mean that in the gfortran implementation the subroutine name is part of the scope this subroutine defines (which forbids any other entity declared with the same identifier). Is this standard? (Sorry I am not yet used to parse by myself all the Fortran specs...) From my view, a subroutine and an interface are not just orthogonal objects which should conflict because they have the same name. In an ideal world, the compiler would assume the interface "foo" refers to the subroutine "foo", and the compiler will have by the way the possibility to check if they are consistent... > > Because if this is explicitly forbidden, we are wondering what the Fortran > > committee had in mind for programs using thousands of subroutines and where > > the programmers want to provide the interfaces for each. > > I think your idea is to "hide" the implementation (the subroutines) from the > interfaces (i.e. the module itself). We just have (herited from a Fortran 77 implementation) several libraries, divided in several files each, defining several subroutines each. In addition we wrote (i.e. duplicated the interface code) all the subroutine interfaces in a few modules, and used these modules everywhere. This gave satisfying results until now. > Well, until Fortran 2003, they had no real solution but then they created the > Technical Report (TR) 19767:2005 "Enhanced Module Facilities". This TR is now > part of Fortran 2008 and informally known as "submodules": > > There is only one important downside: So far, almost no compiler supports > submodules; http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Fortran+2008+status lists only > Cray. We support a large range of systems and we can not yet consider this solution as long as it is not widely supported by the compilers... > (In reply to comment #2) > > I just hope the official recommendation is different from defining all > > the subroutines as module procedures in a single 100000-lines long module... > > Well, you could use multiple modules for the actual implementation and then > collect all of them in > > module master > use m1 > use m2 > ... > end module master > > This will automatically export all (public) procedures from the used modules > such that > "use master" > will work. > > This is not as flexible as submodules but it valid and works since Fortran 90. I am not sure to understand what you suggest to put in the modules m1, m2 etc: the interfaces only or the subroutines themselves?
(In reply to comment #4) > So basically you mean that in the gfortran implementation the subroutine name > is part of the scope this subroutine defines (which forbids any other entity > declared with the same identifier). Is this standard? Yes. It gets more obvious if you consider a function: function f() integer :: f thus, the "f" needs to be part of the body of the function. It should be buried in "16 Scope, association, and definition", but I need some time to extract it. You could also ask at the comp.lang.fortran newsgroup where (among others) the editor of the Fortran 2003 standard answers such questions. > From my view, a subroutine and an interface are not just orthogonal objects > which should conflict because they have the same name. Instead of an interface, consider: module m external sub end module m recursive subroutine sub() use m call sub() end subroutine sub This is equivalent to: recursive subroutine sub() external sub call sub() end subroutine sub Thus, you specify that some external subroutine "sub" exists ("external sub") but at the same time you are in the subroutine. Thus, you have somehow either specified the same subroutine twice or two different ones, which have the same name. It looks odd, it looks wrong - and the committee has decided that it is invalid. That it is invalid does not mean that one cannot implement it, it also does not mean that there is no usage case for it; it just means that either they did not come up with the usage case - or thought that it is the wrong solution to the problem. In this case, I think it is the latter. > In an ideal world, the > compiler would assume the interface "foo" refers to the subroutine "foo", and > the compiler will have by the way the possibility to check if they are > consistent... In an ideal world there is no need to use an INTERFACE block at all as the interface is automatically available if the procedure is in a module or an internal procedure. As written, the committee has realized that the previous concept is insufficient and added around 2003 (ISO publication: 2005) a technical report to solve this problem: submodules. [Submodules] > We support a large range of systems and we can not yet consider this solution > as long as it is not widely supported by the compilers... Well, as I wrote that's the idea of the committee. Many expected that it would be quickly implemented - much earlier than the rest of Fortran 2003. However, it seems to be one of the features which gets implemented very late - one of the last Fortran 2008 features! Given that currently only crayftn supports it, I also do not recommend its use. > > (In reply to comment #2) > > Well, you could use multiple modules for the actual implementation and then > > collect all of them in > > module master > > use m1 > > use m2 > > ... > > end module master > > I am not sure to understand what you suggest to put in the modules m1, m2 etc: > the interfaces only or the subroutines themselves? The subroutines themselves. That avoids having the whole library in a single file; it also avoid to write an interface for all the procedures. There is a down side: If you need the library available without "USE module" in a Fortran 77 like fashion or if you do not want to release the source code, it won't work. (For the former case, one should consider C bindings.) Whether this proposal is a good solution for your problem, I don't know, but it is a Fortran 95 solution for (part of) your problem.
(In reply to comment #5) > It should be buried in "16 Scope, association, and definition", but I need some > time to extract it. Ok, so did I. Here is what I can read section 16.2, p.406 (shortened): "Within a scoping unit, identifiers of entities in the following classes: (1) ..., abstract interfaces, generic interfaces, ... are local identifiers in that scoping unit. Within a scoping unit, a local identifier of an entity of class (1) shall not be the same as a global identifier used in that scoping unit." There is no explicit rule regarding the "specific interfaces" which we are interested in since the beginning. Furthermore, section 12.3.2.1, p.260 + corrigendum 5: "A procedure shall not have more than one explicit specific interface in a given scoping unit, except that if the interface is accessed by use association, there may be more than one local name for the procedure". As far as I understand, specific interface names accessed by use-association do not conflict with the procedure name itself. Isn't it a key point in our discussion? > You could also ask at the comp.lang.fortran newsgroup where > (among others) the editor of the Fortran 2003 standard answers such questions. Yes it will be interesting to have their point of view depending on how we finally agree on the standard interpretation. Thanks for your other explanations and examples, I keep them in mind for further discussions, here or on the comp.lang.fortran newsgroup .
(In reply to comment #6) > "Within a scoping unit, identifiers of entities in the following classes: > (1) ..., abstract interfaces, generic interfaces, ... > are local identifiers in that scoping unit. > Within a scoping unit, a local identifier of an entity of class (1) shall not > be the same as a global identifier used in that scoping unit." > > There is no explicit rule regarding the "specific interfaces" which we are > interested in since the beginning. Well, there is: "external procedures accessed via USE," which should apply as "1.3.112.2 external procedure -- procedure defined [...] by means other than Fortran (12.6.3)", namely (12.6.3): "The interface of a procedure defined by means other than Fortran may be specified by an interface body or procedure declaration statement." > "A procedure shall not have more than one explicit specific interface in a > given scoping unit, except that if the interface is accessed by use > association, there may be more than one local name for the procedure". > As far as I understand, specific interface names accessed by use-association > do not conflict with the procedure name itself. Isn't it a key point in our > discussion? Well, it is the key point of the discussion. However, the quote is about: USE m, func1 => f, func2 => f where func1 and func2 both are different local names for the same procedure and where the USE statement does not make "f" a class-1 identifier. And there is also: use m1, only: f use m2, only: f which is OK if "m2" use-associates "f" from m1 (or vice versa).
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > "Within a scoping unit, identifiers of entities in the following classes: > > (1) ..., abstract interfaces, generic interfaces, ... > > are local identifiers in that scoping unit. > > Within a scoping unit, a local identifier of an entity of class (1) shall not > > be the same as a global identifier used in that scoping unit." > > > > There is no explicit rule regarding the "specific interfaces" which we are > > interested in since the beginning. > > Well, there is: > "external procedures accessed via USE," > which should apply as "1.3.112.2 external procedure -- procedure defined [...] > by means other than Fortran (12.6.3)", namely (12.6.3): "The interface of a > procedure defined by means other than Fortran may be specified by an interface > body or procedure declaration statement." So I think at this stage we disagree on the standard interpretation. External procedures are just external procedures declared with the EXTERNAL statement. If their interface is provided thanks to a specific interface, then the rules regarding the specific interfaces must apply, if such rules exist. Furthermore in our case we are discussing Fortran-based subroutines and their interfaces, so there are no "external procedures defined by other means than Fortran" to be considered here. > > "A procedure shall not have more than one explicit specific interface in a > > given scoping unit, except that if the interface is accessed by use > > association, there may be more than one local name for the procedure". > > As far as I understand, specific interface names accessed by use-association > > do not conflict with the procedure name itself. Isn't it a key point in our > > discussion? > > Well, it is the key point of the discussion. However, the quote is about: > USE m, func1 => f, func2 => f > where func1 and func2 both are different local names for the same procedure and > where the USE statement does not make "f" a class-1 identifier. And there is > also: > use m1, only: f > use m2, only: f > which is OK if "m2" use-associates "f" from m1 (or vice versa). Well, by reading again and again the corrigendum added here, I would have said that it corrects on purpose the problem we are facing. We must not be the only ones trying to write and share among files the specific interfaces to Fortran77-based procedures...
Sebastien has now ask at c.l.f, cf. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/ef3900ab261c5cd9 Suggested workaround/solution: subroutine mysub() use MYINTERFACES, ignore_me => mysub
Indeed this is a workaround that we will probably adopt. I would say that although I partially disagree the choices made in the Fortran Standards in this context, gfortran is not to blame here. So I think this "bug" can be closed. Thanks for the comments Tobias.
(In reply to comment #10) > I would say that although I partially disagree the choices made in the Fortran > Standards in this context, gfortran is not to blame here. So I think this "bug" > can be closed. Well, it (and the other compilers) could still be blamed for not implementing submodules earlier. (For instance, the authors of "Fortran 95/2003 explained" assumed that it would get implemented before most of the Fortran 2003 features. As it turned out, it gets implemented as one of the later Fortran 2008 (!) features.) CLOSED bug.