Hello Mikael,

The new team is different to the parent team and so "I'm inclined to
think that they are different teams, and the program should output
(for each image): -1 and 12." is correct.

Expanding your example a bit:
program prog
   use, intrinsic :: iso_fortran_env, only: team_type
   implicit none
   type(team_type) :: team1, team2
   print *, team_number()
   form team (mod (this_image (), 4) +1, team1)
   change team(team1)
     form team (mod (this_image (), 2) +1, team2)
     change team(team2)
       print *, team_number(team1), team_number(team2)
     end team
   end team
end program

Results in:
pault@fedora:~/prs/coarrays$ export GFORTRAN_NUM_IMAGES=8
pault@fedora:~/prs/coarrays$ rm ./a.out;rm
*.original;~/gfc/bin/gfortran -fcoarray=lib -g ../junk.f90
-lcaf_shmem;./a.out
rm: cannot remove '*.original': No such file or directory
          -1
          -1
          -1
          -1
          -1
          -1
          -1
          -1
           3           1
           3           2
           2           2
           2           1
           4           2
           4           1
           1           2
           1           1

The other brands do the same.

Paul

On Wed, 2 Sept 2026 at 09:39, Mikael Morin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> what is not clear to me is what the expected output is for the following
> program:
>
> program prog
>    use, intrinsic :: iso_fortran_env, only: team_type
>    implicit none
>    type(team_type) :: team
>    print *, team_number()
>    form team (12, team)
>    change team(team)
>      print *, team_number()
>    end team
> end program
>
> This program tries to answer the question:
> A child team containing exactly the same images as its parent, is it the
> same team or is it a different team from its parent?
>
> I'm inclined to think that they are different teams, and the program
> should output (for each image): -1 and 12.
>
> With the other answer possible, meaning they are the same team, I expect
> the output to be -1 twice.
>
> I would like to answer the question above first before reviewing your patch.
>
> Mikael

Reply via email to