[patch, fortran] PR30014 INQUIRE (iolength = xx) limited to kind=4

[Jerry DeLisle]

Thomas Koenig wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 09:30:56PM -0800, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> 
> :REVIEWMAIL:
> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
>> ping
>>
>> Also, should I increase size parameter as well? Any opinions?
> 
> We already have an incompatible change for 4.2 (the memory
> allocation interface), so I tend to think we should put this
> into 4.2 a well.
> 
> I think regression-tests on 32-bit systems are necessary for
> this, if at all possible also on big- and little endian machines.

I agree on the tests, need to find someone with such machines.  However, on back 
porting to 4.2, we were trying to follow stricter rules on back porting.  I see 
the positive side of keeping 4.2 in sync with 4.3 on the one hand and following 
the release rules on the other.  I will let others decide on this.
> 
>> Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>>> :ADDPATCH fortran:
>>>
>>> The attached patch changes the type to GFC_IO_INT which will either be 
>>> kind=4 or kind=8 depending on the system.  The patch is very straight 
>>> forward.  I don't see any point giving a warning if a user specifies a 
>>> variable of kind=8 in a -std=f95 situation.  If others feel stronger 
>>> about this I will do it.
> 
> If it is something that can be diagnosed easily, I'd be in favor
> doing the warning.

OK, I will look into it.  It should not be too difficult.

> 
>>> A test case for this will require a 
>>> lot of memory and consumes time.  I suggest we go without one for this.  
>>> I have attached the test case that I used to check this out.
> 
> I don't quite understand why it would take so long.  Did it
> actually do so during your testing?  Would it do the same
> for an allocatable array?

I was thinking that We would have to create an output list greater than 2 gbyte 
so that the IOLENGTH resulting is an integer large enough to require KIND=8, 
similar to testing the sub-record patch.  Doing that, the test may fail on 
smaller machines.  We already have test cases for smaller output lists I 
believe.  The time to allocate the huge array would not be bad, but noticeable.

Thanks for feedback,

Jerry