Le 20/09/2022 à 08:54, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
On 19.09.22 22:50, Mikael Morin wrote:
Le 19/09/2022 à 21:46, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
Assumed size (*) is just a contiguous hunk of memory of possibly
unknown size, which can be zero. So you couldn't set a clobber
for the a(1) actual argument.
Couldn't you clobber A entirely? If no element of B is initialized in
SUB, well, A has undefined values on return from SUB. That's how
INTENT(OUT) works.
Yes, I think so - you are passing the starting element of an array
to an assumed-size array via storage association rules.
It has to be an explicit interface, of course, otherwise it is
unclear if an array or an array element is passed.
I have looked for the relevant excerpts from the standard.
From 15.5.2.11 (sequence association):
If the dummy argument is not of type character
with default or C character kind, and the actual argument is an array element
designator, the element sequence
consists of that array element and each element that follows it in array
element order.
If the dummy argument is
assumed-size, the number of elements in the dummy argument is exactly the
number of elements in the element
sequence.
So the dummy size, even if not known to the programmer, is clearly
defined (to the full array size in your example).
