Patch PING – see comment in the follow-up email of the patch email - and in the email(s) before in that thread.
Tobias On 07.09.21 16:33, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Now I actually tested the patch – and fixed some issues. OK? – It does add support for 'allocated(a[i])' by treating it as 'allocated(a)', as 'a' must be collectively allocated ("established") on all images of the team.* 'a[i]' is (probably) an allocatable, following Malcolm in answer to my question to the J3-list as linked below. Tobias * Ignoring issues related to failed images. It could also be handled by fetching 'a' from the remote image, but I am not sure that's better in terms of handling failed images. PS: On 07.09.21 10:02, Tobias Burnus wrote:Hi Harald, I spend yesterday about two hours with this. Now I am still tired but understand more. I think the confusion between the two of us is due to wording and in which directions the thoughts then go: Talking about coindexed, all of a[i], b[i]%c and c%d[i] are coindexed and there are many constraints like "shall not be a coindexed variable" – which then rejects all of those. That's what I was thinking of. I think your starting point is that while ('a' = allocatable) a, b%a, c[5]%d(1)%a are ALLOCATABLE, adding a subobject reference such as a(:), b%a(:,:), c[5]%d(1)%a(:,:,:) makes the variable no longer allocatable. I think that's what you were thinking of. We then both argued along those different lines – which caused the confusion as we both thought we talked about the same. While those cases are clear, the question is whether a[i] or b%a[i] is allocatable or not – assuming that 'a' is a scalar. (For an array, '(:)' has to appear before the image-selector, which in turn makes it nonallocatable.) I tried to pinpoint the words for this in the standard – and failed. I think I need a "how to read the Fortran standard" 101 and some long time actually reading it :-( Malcolm has answered me – and he believes (but only offhand) that a[i] and b%a[i] _are_ allocatable. See (6) at https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2021-September/013322.html This implies that if ( allocated (a[i]) .and. allocated (b%a[i]) ) stop 1 is valid. However, I do note that coarray allocatables have to be collectively (de)allocated, therefore allocated (a[i]) .and. allocated (b%a[i]) is equivalent to allocated (a) .and. allocated (b%a) at least assuming that no image has failed. First: Does this answer all the questions you had and resolved the confusion? Secondly, do you agree about the last bits of the analysis? Thirdly, what do you think of the attached patch? Tobias
----------------- Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
