Size intrinsic and related problems

[José Rui Faustino de Sousa <jrfsousa at gmail dot com>]

Hi all!

I noticed that the size intrinsic does not seem to follow the Fortran 
standard, from my reading of it I would expect the following pseudo 
Fortran to print -7:

arr(7,*)
call sub(arr)

subroutine sub(a)
a(..)

print *, size(a)

It prints 0.

In fact the size intrinsic will never return negative values as it is my 
understanding the Fortran standard requires.

This seemed an easy thing to fix, but what is the protocol for "special" 
arrays, like assumed size and zero sized arrays?

One possibility could be:

Zero sized   (arr(0)) lbound:1 ubound:0   so that extent is  0
Assumed-size (arr(*)) lbound:l ubound:l-2 so that extent is -1

This is likely documented somewhere, but I could not find it. And, 
probably I am misunderstanding something, but usage in the code seems 
inconsistent.

Then there is another related problem

arr(*)
call sub(arr(l:u))

subroutine sub(a)
a(..)

print *, size(a)

which again prints 0 and not u-l+1 has I expected.

This seems to be caused by the array section being explicitly marked as 
an assumed-size array, by setting ubound to -1. I would expect the array 
section to be passed as an explicit shape array, is my interpretation 
correct?

If I understood correctly the meaning of the array types demanding that 
the array type is AR_FULL would fix this, but OpenMP seems to need to 
know if the section is from an assumed-size array...

The first point seems to be a clear bug report, but in order to try to 
patch anything one would need an "official" position on the protocol to 
use... The last one I am not positively sure if it is a bug and I have 
no idea on how to pass the info to OpenMP.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
José Rui