This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/47023] C_Sizeof: Rejects valid code
- From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:48:31 +0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/47023] C_Sizeof: Rejects valid code
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-47023-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-18 12:48:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The question is also how SIZEOF should act on data pointers:
> Output:
> 2
> 2
> Should it give the size of the pointer itself, or the size of the object it
> points to?
The target/pointee. Reasoning: For your example, g95, gfortran, ifort and
pathf95 all print "2". That's also what gfortran claims to do at
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/SIZEOF.html
Regarding (comment 19, comment 20):
print *,sizeof(proc) ! (1) -- prints 1
print *,sizeof(pp) ! (2) -- prints 1
print *,sizeof(pp(0.)) ! (3) -- prints 4
ifort rejects (1) and (2) and returns "4" for (3). I think gfortran should do
likewise. Returning the pointee size for scalar variables but the pointer size
of functions is also a bit odd.
* * *
For Cray pointers/pointees:
use iso_c_binding, only: c_sizeof
implicit none
integer(2) :: a
pointer (aptr, a)
print *,sizeof (a) ! , c_sizeof (a)
print *,sizeof (aptr)! , c_sizeof (aptr)
end
This program fails to compile for c_sizeof while the sizeof version prints "2"
and "8", which I think is OK.