[patch, fortran] Handling of .and. and .or. expressions

Janus Weil janus@gcc.gnu.org
Sat Jun 16 19:21:00 GMT 2018



Am 16. Juni 2018 18:38:40 MESZ schrieb Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>:
>On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 01:09:36PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Am 15. Juni 2018 20:38:17 MESZ schrieb Steve Kargl
><sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>:
>> >> But at least for pure functions, this optimization looks Ok.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Why is everyone fixated on PURE vs IMPURE functions?
>> 
>> Simply because it makes a difference in this context!
>
>It does not!  A function marked as PURE by a programmer
>must meet certain requirement of the Fortran standard.
>An unmarked function or a function marked as IMPURE can
>still meet those same requirements.  Marking something as 
>IMPURE has only a single requirement in the standard.
>
>   An impure elemental procedure processes array arguments
>   in array element order.
>
>That's it.  Marking a function as IMPURE does not mean 
>the function has side effects.  It does not mean that
>a function must be evaluated for each reference.  Are
>you advocating that gfortran must evaluate ping() 
>twice for
>
>  impure real function ping()
>  end function ping
>  
>  x = ping() + 0 * ping()
>  end

Absolutely, sir. That's what I'm advocating. If someone deliberately declares a function as impure, he should be prepared to deal with the consequences. In general, though, one can wonder whether the compiler could not warn that the impure declaration is not necessary (or, in other words, that the function would be better declared as pure).

In any case, the example you're showing is probably not the most problematic one. I assume a much more frequent and critical case would be the one where people forget to mark a function that is effectively pure with the PURE attribute.

However, IIUC, gfortran has the ability to detect that a function meets all pureness requirements and mark it as implicit_pure, so that it can be treated like a pure procedure, even without any explicit PURE declaration by the programmer.

If that's the case, the scheme I proposed should not even have any major performance penalty, since the pureness of a function without explicit pure/impure declaration can be automatically detected, and appropriate optimizations can be chosen.

Therefore the most reasonable strategy I can see is still to apply short-circuiting only to pure functions (explicit or implicit) and avoid it for impure ones.

Cheers,
Janus



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list