Related
I am using procedure overloading and interfaces in order to achieve some sort of genericity in a Fortran program.
For this, I have a module which contains a number of procedures, all duplicated in order to be able to change the variable types. I also have at the beginning of the module, a series of interfaces of the type:
interface norm
module procedure &
norm_r8, &
norm_c
end interface
Now my problem is that I am trying to reference norm using a procedure pointer, as such (in a different module):
procedure(), POINTER :: pNorm => NULL()
pNorm => norm
However, in this situation, gfortran gives me an error saying that I have an undefined reference to norm. If I point to norm_r8 or norm_c, no problem. But since the part of the code that assigns the pointer is not aware of the type of the variables that will be used when norm is called, I need to point to the generic name! Is there a way to point towards an overloaded procedure?
As far as I can tell, a procedure pointer is not allowed to point at a generic interface. The standard only mentions procedures with the EXTERNAL attribute, a module procedures, or certain intrinsic procedures may be associated with a procedure pointer (C1220, ISO/IEC 1539-1:2010). Gfortran also issues a helpful error message for your case:
Error: Procedure pointer target 'norm' at (1) must be either an intrinsic,
host or use associated, referenced or have the EXTERNAL attribute
It also makes sense that you cannot associate to an interface, but only a procedure. An interface is only used in the procedure(INTERFACE) statement to give an explicit interface to the procedures it can point at.
This shouldn't be a showstopper for you, as the purpose of a generic interface can negate your need for a pointer. As long as all potential calls the pointer would be used for are unique in type, kind, rank and number of arguments (so the compiler can differentiate between them), you can just add all of them to a single generic interface and call that in lieu of the pointer. Alternatively you could use a select type() construct to selectively associate your pointer with the specific procedure for your type to avoid needing to associate with a generic interface.
Here is an example of a wrapper procedure to assign the pointer to a specific procedure based on an argument type
subroutine get_proc_ptr(pp, arg)
implicit none
procedure(), pointer, intent(out) :: pp
class(*), intent(inout) :: arg
select type(arg)
type is (real(kind=kind(1d0)))
pp => norm_r8
type is (real)
pp => norm_r
type is (integer)
pp => norm_i
type is (complex)
pp => norm_c
class default
pp => null()
end select
end subroutine
Which can be made use of like this:
real(kind=kind(1d0)) :: arg_r8
procedure(), pointer :: pNorm => null()
arg_r8 = 4.0123456789d30
call get_proc_ptr(pNorm, arg_r8)
call pNorm(arg_r8)
Here is a complete compilable example:
module proc
implicit none
interface norm
module procedure &
norm_r8, &
norm_r, &
norm_i, &
norm_c
end interface
contains
subroutine norm_r8(arg)
implicit none
real(kind=kind(1d0)), intent(in) :: arg
write (*,*) "real8: ", arg
end subroutine
subroutine norm_r(arg)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: arg
write (*,*) "real: ", arg
end subroutine
subroutine norm_i(arg)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: arg
write (*,*) "integer: ", arg
end subroutine
subroutine norm_c(arg)
implicit none
complex, intent(in) :: arg
write (*,*) "complex: ", arg
end subroutine
subroutine get_proc_ptr(pp, arg)
implicit none
procedure(), pointer, intent(out) :: pp
class(*), intent(inout) :: arg
select type(arg)
type is (real(kind=kind(1d0)))
pp => norm_r8
type is (real)
pp => norm_r
type is (integer)
pp => norm_i
type is (complex)
pp => norm_c
class default
pp => null()
end select
end subroutine
end module
program test
use proc
implicit none
real(kind=kind(1d0)) :: arg_r8
real :: arg_r
integer :: arg_i
complex :: arg_c
procedure(), pointer :: pNorm => null()
arg_r8 = 4.0123456789d30
arg_r = 12.5
arg_i = 56
arg_c = (34,3)
call get_proc_ptr(pNorm, arg_r8)
call pNorm(arg_r8)
call get_proc_ptr(pNorm, arg_r)
call pNorm(arg_r)
call get_proc_ptr(pNorm, arg_i)
call pNorm(arg_i)
call get_proc_ptr(pNorm, arg_c)
call pNorm(arg_c)
end program
And here is the output of this program:
$ ./testprocptr
real8: 4.0123456788999999E+030
real: 12.5000000
integer: 56
complex: ( 34.0000000 , 3.00000000 )
If I understand well, you want to achieve two things at one time.
First, you want to use polymorphism to let the compiler call the correct routine dependent on whether you have a different type, rank, number of arguments etcetera.
Second, you want to use procedure pointers to switch between different procedures that have the same interface.
I tried the same. I did not manage to set a pointer to an interface, but I managed to make an interface with pointers.
If you have a module like this
module some_module
! This is the abstract interface for procedure pointers.
interface
subroutine shape_1_interface(arg)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: arg
end subroutine shape_1_interface
subroutine shape_2_interface(arg)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: arg
end subroutine shape_2_interface
end interface
contains
subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_1(arg)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is real",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 1"
end subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_1
subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_1(arg)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is int",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 1"
end subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_1
subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_2(arg)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is real",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 2"
end subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_2
subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_2(arg)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is int",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 2"
end subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_2
subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_3(arg)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is real",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 3"
end subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_3
subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_3(arg)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is int",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 3"
end subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_3
end module some_module
then you can do in your main program:
program main
use some_module
implicit none
procedure(shape_1_interface), pointer :: routine_shape_1
procedure(shape_2_interface), pointer :: routine_shape_2
interface routine
procedure routine_shape_1
procedure routine_shape_2
end interface routine
routine_shape_1 => routine_shape_1_implementation_1
routine_shape_2 => routine_shape_2_implementation_1
call routine(4)
routine_shape_1 => routine_shape_1_implementation_2
routine_shape_2 => routine_shape_2_implementation_2
call routine(4.0)
end program main
It is a pity that when you want to set the pointers to a different implementation, you have to do that for all shapes, but the good thing is that you can just call 'routine' and you automatically get the desired function.
This is the output:
Arg is int 4
Implementation 1
Arg is real 4.00000000000000
Implementation 2
I read the section Type Casting in Callbacks of the article Fortran Best practices.
I would like to use in my program something as described in Using type(c_ptr) Pointer
But I have a problem. I give an outline of what I try to do. I hope it will be sufficient to understand. Otherwise, let me know, I will post a full example.
I have two types and I call the same subroutine with one or the other type. The first parameter of my subroutine is an integer to indicate which is the type of the second parameter (type1_t or type2_t)
type type1_t
real :: a, b
integer :: c
end type1_t
type type2_t
real :: a,e
integer :: b,c,d
end type2_t
type(type1_t) :: type1
! ... init of type1
type(type2_t) :: type2
! ... init of type2_t
call myfoo(1,c_loc(type_1))
call myfoo(2,c_loc(type_2))
But now, I have a problem with the declaration in myfoo because the declaration must be done in fortran before instructions.
I know that the following code does not work :
subroutine myfoo(i, params)
integer, intent(in) :: i
type(c_ptr), intent(in) :: params
if (i == 1) then
type(type1_t), pointer :: pars
elseif (i ==2) then
type(type2_t), pointer :: pars
endif
call c_f_pointer(params, pars)
! do some stuff with pars (there are common parts of code either the dummy args is type_1 or type_2). For example, the line above.
end subroutine myfoo
If I use a block construct, I will have a problem because the variable disappears at the end of the block.
How can I solve it using c_ptr?
A simple way to accomplish this is to put type-specific code in two separate routines in a module, and bind them using an interface, so the compiler will pick the right subroutine based on the type of the variable provided on input:
module blabla
private
public :: foo
interface foo
module procedure foo1
module procedure foo2
end interface
contains
subroutine foo1(params)
type(t1) :: params
! Do cool stuff
end subroutine foo1
subroutine foo2(params)
type(t2) :: params
! Do type-2 cool stuff here
end subroutine foo2
end module blabla
In Fortran, it is not possible to make a member variable of a derived type a target. (I guess this has to do with the standard not specifying how a derived type is stored in memory?) However, I can have a pointer as a member variable and associate pointers with pointers. Like I do in the example below.
module DataMod
type DataType
real(8), private, dimension(:,:), pointer, contiguous :: A
real(8), private, dimension(:,:), pointer, contiguous :: B
integer :: n
contains
procedure :: alloc
procedure :: set
procedure :: print_
final :: dealloc
end type DataType
interface DataType
procedure :: NewDataType
end interface DataType
contains
function NewDataType(dimension_) result(new)
integer, intent(in) :: dimension_
type(DataType) :: new
new%n = dimension_
end function NewDataType
subroutine alloc(dataObject)
class(DataType) :: dataObject
allocate(dataObject%A(dataObject%n,dataObject%n))
allocate(dataObject%B(dataObject%n,dataObject%n))
end subroutine alloc
subroutine set(dataObject, datas, choice)
class(DataType) :: dataObject
real(8), dimension(dataObject%n,dataObject%n), intent(in) :: datas
character(len=1), intent(in) :: choice
real(8), dimension(:,:), pointer :: dataPointer
integer :: i,j
if(choice .eq. 'A') then
datapointer => dataObject%A
elseif(choice .eq. 'B') then
datapointer => dataObject%B
else
stop
endif
do j = 1,dataObject%n
do i = 1,dataObject%n
datapointer(i,j) = datas(i,j)
enddo
enddo
end subroutine set
subroutine print_(dataObject)
class(DataType), intent(in) :: dataObject
print *, 'A'
print *, dataObject%A(1:dataObject%n,1:dataObject%n)
print *
print *, 'B'
print *, dataObject%B(1:dataObject%n,1:dataObject%n)
end subroutine print_
subroutine dealloc(dataObject)
type(DataType) :: dataObject
deallocate(dataObject%A)
deallocate(dataObject%B)
end subroutine dealloc
end module DataMod
program DataTest
use DataMod, only: DataType
implicit none
real(8), dimension(2,2) :: testArray
type(DataType) :: testType
testType = DataType(2)
call testType%alloc()
testArray(1,1) = 1
testArray(2,1) = 2
testArray(1,2) = 3
testArray(2,2) = 4
call testType%set(testArray, 'A')
testArray(1,1) = 5
testArray(2,1) = 6
testArray(1,2) = 7
testArray(2,2) = 8
call testType%set(testArray, 'B')
call testType%print_()
end program DataTest
In the set routine, I use an if statement to set a pointer to decide if it should dump the incoming matrix in A or B. In the program I'm currently working on, I must decide which combination of four different matrices to multiply together and setting a pair of pointers is much nicer than writing 16 almost identical calls to dgemm.
My question is if there are any problems with this approach besides the normal dangers of dangling pointers etc. or a way to do this without pointers? The arrays should not be accessed from outside the object. Are there any performance issues?
Components in a type definition may not be declared with the TARGET attribute (beyond the missing syntax, that would be inconsistent with other concepts and rules in the current language), but if a variable of derived type has the TARGET attribute, then all of its subobjects have the TARGET attribute too. For a type definition:
type DataType
real(8), private, dimension(:,:), allocatable :: A
real(8), private, dimension(:,:), allocatable :: B
...
The procedure set could be written...
subroutine set(dataObject, datas, choice)
class(DataType), TARGET :: dataObject
real(8), dimension(dataObject%n,dataObject%n), intent(in) :: datas
character(len=1), intent(in) :: choice
real(8), dimension(:,:), pointer :: dataPointer
! require dataobject%A and ..%B to already be allocated.
if(choice .eq. 'A') then
datapointer => dataObject%A
elseif(choice .eq. 'B') then
datapointer => dataObject%B
else
stop
endif
datapointer = datas ! or some other operation.
...
(dataPointer could be declared contiguous, the allocatable arrays that it gets pointed at are always contiguous.)
An actual argument without the TARGET attribute may be associated with a dummy argument with the TARGET attribute. If this is the case, then pointers associated with the dummy argument become undefined when execution of the procedure completes. (Such pointers may also become undefined in some cases, even when the actual argument has the TARGET attribute - see F2018 15.5.2.4p8 on for details - but these cases don't apply to scalars.)
Consequently, in the general case, if a pointer to one of the components of an object of derived type needs to outlive a procedure like set above (e.g. if dataPointer was not local to set) and you can't ensure that the actual argument will always have the TARGET attribute, then the original method using pointer components may be more appropriate. The implementation in the question appears to be ok - though I would suggest making the finalizer IMPURE ELEMENTAL to make things more robust to future changes.
There are basically two ways to pass arrays to a subroutine in Fortran 90/95:
PROGRAM ARRAY
INTEGER, ALLOCATABLE :: A(:,:)
INTEGER :: N
ALLOCATE(A(N,N))
CALL ARRAY_EXPLICIT(A,N)
! or
CALL ARRAY_ASSUMED(A)
END PROGRAM ARRAY
SUBROUTINE ARRAY_EXPLICIT(A,N)
INTEGER :: N
INTEGER :: A(N,N)
! bla bla
END SUBROUTINE ARRAY_EXPLICIT
SUBROUTINE ARRAY_ASSUMED(A)
INTEGER, ALLOCATABLE :: A(:,:)
N=SIZE(A,1)
! bla bla
END SUBROUTINE ARRAY_ASSUMED
where you need an explicit interface for the second, usually through the use of a module.
From FORTRAN77, I'm used to the first alternative, and I read this is also the most efficient if you pass the whole array.
The nice thing with the explicit shape is that I can also call a subroutine and treat the array as a vector instead of a matrix:
SUBROUTINE ARRAY_EXPLICIT(A,N)
INTEGER :: N
INTEGER :: A(N**2)
! bla bla
END SUBROUTINE ARRAY_EXPLICIT
I wondered if there is a nice way to do that kind of thing using the second, assumed shape interface, without copying it.
See the RESHAPE intrinsic, e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/RESHAPE.html
Alternatively, if you want to avoid the copy (in some cases an optimizing compiler might be able to do a reshape without copying, e.g. if the RHS array is not used afterwards, but I wouldn't count on it), as of Fortran 2003 you can assign pointers to targets of different rank, using bounds remapping. E.g. something like
program ptrtest
real, pointer :: a(:)
real, pointer :: b(:,:)
integer :: n = 10
allocate(a(n**2))
a = 42
b (1:n, 1:n) => a
end program ptrtest
I was looking to do the same thing and came across this discussion. None of the solutions suited my purposes, but I found that there is a way to reshape an array without copying the data using iso_c_binding if you are using the fortran 2003 standard which current fortran 90/95 compilers tend to support. I know the discussion is old, but I figured I would add what I came up with for the benefit of others with this question.
The key is to use the function C_LOC to convert an array to an array pointer, and then use C_F_POINTER to convert this back into a fortran array pointer with the desired shape. One challenge with using C_LOC is that C_LOC only works for array that have a directly specified shape. This is because arrays in fortran with an incomplete size specification (i.e., that use a : for some dimension) include an array descriptor along with the array data. C_LOC does not give you the memory location of the array data, but the location of the descriptor. So an allocatable array or a pointer array don't work with C_LOC (unless you want the location of the compiler specific array descriptor data structure). The solution is to create a subroutine or function that receives the array as an array of fixed size (the size really doesn't matter). This causes the array variable in the function (or subroutine) to point to the location of the array data rather than the location of the array descriptor. You then use C_LOC to get a pointer to the array data location and C_F_POINTER to convert this pointer back into an array with the desired shape. The desired shape must be passed into this function to be used with C_F_POINTER. Below is an example:
program arrayresize
implicit none
integer, allocatable :: array1(:)
integer, pointer :: array2(:,:)
! allocate and initialize array1
allocate(array1(6))
array1 = (/1,2,3,4,5,6/)
! This starts out initialized to 2
print *, 'array1(2) = ', array1(2)
! Point array2 to same data as array1. The shape of array2
! is passed in as an array of intergers because C_F_POINTER
! uses and array of intergers as a SIZE parameter.
array2 => getArray(array1, (/2,3/))
! Change the value at array2(2,1) (same as array1(2))
array2(2,1) = 5
! Show that data in array1(2) was modified by changing
! array2(2,1)
print *, 'array(2,1) = array1(2) = ', array1(2)
contains
function getArray(array, shape_) result(aptr)
use iso_c_binding, only: C_LOC, C_F_POINTER
! Pass in the array as an array of fixed size so that there
! is no array descriptor associated with it. This means we
! can get a pointer to the location of the data using C_LOC
integer, target :: array(1)
integer :: shape_(:)
integer, pointer :: aptr(:,:)
! Use C_LOC to get the start location of the array data, and
! use C_F_POINTER to turn this into a fortran pointer (aptr).
! Note that we need to specify the shape of the pointer using an
! integer array.
call C_F_POINTER(C_LOC(array), aptr, shape_)
end function
end program
#janneb has already answered re RESHAPE. RESHAPE is a function -- usually used in an assignment statement so there will be a copy operation. Perhaps it can be done without copying using pointers. Unless the array is huge, it is probably better to use RESHAPE.
I'm skeptical that the explicit shape array is more efficient than the assumed shape, in terms of runtime. My inclination is to use the features of the Fortran >=90 language and use assumed shape declarations ... that way you don't have to bother passing the dimensions.
EDIT:
I tested the sample program of #janneb with ifort 11, gfortran 4.5 and gfortran 4.6. Of these three, it only works in gfortran 4.6. Interestingly, to go the other direction and connect a 1-D array to an existing 2-D array requires another new feature of Fortran 2008, the "contiguous" attribute -- at least according to gfortran 4.6.0 20110318. Without this attribute in the declaration, there is a compile time error.
program test_ptrs
implicit none
integer :: i, j
real, dimension (:,:), pointer, contiguous :: array_twod
real, dimension (:), pointer :: array_oned
allocate ( array_twod (2,2) )
do i=1,2
do j=1,2
array_twod (i,j) = i*j
end do
end do
array_oned (1:4) => array_twod
write (*, *) array_oned
stop
end program test_ptrs
You can use assumed-size arrays, but it can mean multiple layers of wrapper
routines:
program test
implicit none
integer :: test_array(10,2)
test_array(:,1) = (/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10/)
test_array(:,2) = (/11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20/)
write(*,*) "Original array:"
call print_a(test_array)
write(*,*) "Reshaped array:"
call print_reshaped(test_array, size(test_array))
contains
subroutine print_reshaped(a, n)
integer, intent(in) :: a(*)
integer, intent(in) :: n
call print_two_dim(a, 2, n/2)
end subroutine
subroutine print_two_dim(a, n1, n2)
integer, intent(in) :: a(1:n1,1:*)
integer, intent(in) :: n1, n2
call print_a(a(1:n1,1:n2))
end subroutine
subroutine print_a(a)
integer, intent(in) :: a(:,:)
integer :: i
write(*,*) "shape:", shape(a)
do i = 1, size(a(1,:))
write(*,*) a(:,i)
end do
end subroutine
end program test
I am using ifort 14.0.3 and 2D to 1D conversion, I could use an allocatable array for 2D array and a pointer array for 1D:
integer,allocatable,target :: A(:,:)
integer,pointer :: AP(:)
allocate(A(3,N))
AP(1:3*N) => A
As #M.S.B mentioned, in case both A and AP have the pointer attribute, I had to use contiguous attribute for A to guarantee the consistency of the conversion.
Gfortran is a bit paranoid with interfaces. It not only wants to know the type, kind, rank and number of arguments, but also the shape, the target attribute and the intent (although I agree with the intent part). I encountered a similar problem.
With gfortran, there are three different dimension definition:
1. Fixed
2. Variable
3. Assumed-size
With ifort, categories 1 and 2 are considered the same, so you can do just define any dimension size as 0 in the interface and it works.
program test
implicit none
integer, dimension(:), allocatable :: ownlist
interface
subroutine blueprint(sz,arr)
integer, intent(in) :: sz
integer, dimension(0), intent(in) :: arr
! This zero means that the size does not matter,
! as long as it is a one-dimensional integer array.
end subroutine blueprint
end interface
procedure(blueprint), pointer :: ptr
allocate(ownlist(3))
ownlist = (/3,4,5/)
ptr => rout1
call ptr(3,ownlist)
deallocate(ownlist)
allocate(ownlist(0:10))
ownlist = (/3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3/)
ptr => rout2
call ptr(3,ownlist)
deallocate(ownlist)
contains
! This one has a dimension size as input.
subroutine rout1(sz,arr)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: sz
integer, dimension(sz), intent(in) :: arr
write(*,*) arr
write(*,*) arr(1)
end subroutine rout1
! This one has a fixed dimension size.
subroutine rout2(sz,arr)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: sz
integer, dimension(0:10), intent(in) :: arr
write(*,*) "Ignored integer: ",sz
write(*,*) arr
write(*,*) arr(1)
end subroutine rout2
end program test
Gfortran complains about the interface. Changing the 0 into 'sz' solves the problem four 'rout1', but not for 'rout2'.
However, you can fool gfortran around and say dimension(0:10+0*sz) instead of dimension(0:10) and gfortran compiles and gives the same
result as ifort.
This is a stupid trick and it relies on the existence of the integer 'sz' that may not be there. Another program:
program difficult_test
implicit none
integer, dimension(:), allocatable :: ownlist
interface
subroutine blueprint(arr)
integer, dimension(0), intent(in) :: arr
end subroutine blueprint
end interface
procedure(blueprint), pointer :: ptr
allocate(ownlist(3))
ownlist = (/3,4,5/)
ptr => rout1
call ptr(ownlist)
deallocate(ownlist)
allocate(ownlist(0:10))
ownlist = (/3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3/)
ptr => rout2
call ptr(ownlist)
deallocate(ownlist)
contains
subroutine rout1(arr)
implicit none
integer, dimension(3), intent(in) :: arr
write(*,*) arr
write(*,*) arr(1)
end subroutine rout1
subroutine rout2(arr)
implicit none
integer, dimension(0:10), intent(in) :: arr
write(*,*) arr
write(*,*) arr(1)
end subroutine rout2
end program difficult_test
This works under ifort for the same reasons as the previous example, but gfortran complains about the interface. I do not know how I can fix it.
The only thing I want to tell gfortran is 'I do not know the dimension size yet, but we will fix it.'. But this needs a spare integer arguemnt (or something else that we can turn into an integer) to fool gfortran around.
I am using procedure overloading and interfaces in order to achieve some sort of genericity in a Fortran program.
For this, I have a module which contains a number of procedures, all duplicated in order to be able to change the variable types. I also have at the beginning of the module, a series of interfaces of the type:
interface norm
module procedure &
norm_r8, &
norm_c
end interface
Now my problem is that I am trying to reference norm using a procedure pointer, as such (in a different module):
procedure(), POINTER :: pNorm => NULL()
pNorm => norm
However, in this situation, gfortran gives me an error saying that I have an undefined reference to norm. If I point to norm_r8 or norm_c, no problem. But since the part of the code that assigns the pointer is not aware of the type of the variables that will be used when norm is called, I need to point to the generic name! Is there a way to point towards an overloaded procedure?
As far as I can tell, a procedure pointer is not allowed to point at a generic interface. The standard only mentions procedures with the EXTERNAL attribute, a module procedures, or certain intrinsic procedures may be associated with a procedure pointer (C1220, ISO/IEC 1539-1:2010). Gfortran also issues a helpful error message for your case:
Error: Procedure pointer target 'norm' at (1) must be either an intrinsic,
host or use associated, referenced or have the EXTERNAL attribute
It also makes sense that you cannot associate to an interface, but only a procedure. An interface is only used in the procedure(INTERFACE) statement to give an explicit interface to the procedures it can point at.
This shouldn't be a showstopper for you, as the purpose of a generic interface can negate your need for a pointer. As long as all potential calls the pointer would be used for are unique in type, kind, rank and number of arguments (so the compiler can differentiate between them), you can just add all of them to a single generic interface and call that in lieu of the pointer. Alternatively you could use a select type() construct to selectively associate your pointer with the specific procedure for your type to avoid needing to associate with a generic interface.
Here is an example of a wrapper procedure to assign the pointer to a specific procedure based on an argument type
subroutine get_proc_ptr(pp, arg)
implicit none
procedure(), pointer, intent(out) :: pp
class(*), intent(inout) :: arg
select type(arg)
type is (real(kind=kind(1d0)))
pp => norm_r8
type is (real)
pp => norm_r
type is (integer)
pp => norm_i
type is (complex)
pp => norm_c
class default
pp => null()
end select
end subroutine
Which can be made use of like this:
real(kind=kind(1d0)) :: arg_r8
procedure(), pointer :: pNorm => null()
arg_r8 = 4.0123456789d30
call get_proc_ptr(pNorm, arg_r8)
call pNorm(arg_r8)
Here is a complete compilable example:
module proc
implicit none
interface norm
module procedure &
norm_r8, &
norm_r, &
norm_i, &
norm_c
end interface
contains
subroutine norm_r8(arg)
implicit none
real(kind=kind(1d0)), intent(in) :: arg
write (*,*) "real8: ", arg
end subroutine
subroutine norm_r(arg)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: arg
write (*,*) "real: ", arg
end subroutine
subroutine norm_i(arg)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: arg
write (*,*) "integer: ", arg
end subroutine
subroutine norm_c(arg)
implicit none
complex, intent(in) :: arg
write (*,*) "complex: ", arg
end subroutine
subroutine get_proc_ptr(pp, arg)
implicit none
procedure(), pointer, intent(out) :: pp
class(*), intent(inout) :: arg
select type(arg)
type is (real(kind=kind(1d0)))
pp => norm_r8
type is (real)
pp => norm_r
type is (integer)
pp => norm_i
type is (complex)
pp => norm_c
class default
pp => null()
end select
end subroutine
end module
program test
use proc
implicit none
real(kind=kind(1d0)) :: arg_r8
real :: arg_r
integer :: arg_i
complex :: arg_c
procedure(), pointer :: pNorm => null()
arg_r8 = 4.0123456789d30
arg_r = 12.5
arg_i = 56
arg_c = (34,3)
call get_proc_ptr(pNorm, arg_r8)
call pNorm(arg_r8)
call get_proc_ptr(pNorm, arg_r)
call pNorm(arg_r)
call get_proc_ptr(pNorm, arg_i)
call pNorm(arg_i)
call get_proc_ptr(pNorm, arg_c)
call pNorm(arg_c)
end program
And here is the output of this program:
$ ./testprocptr
real8: 4.0123456788999999E+030
real: 12.5000000
integer: 56
complex: ( 34.0000000 , 3.00000000 )
If I understand well, you want to achieve two things at one time.
First, you want to use polymorphism to let the compiler call the correct routine dependent on whether you have a different type, rank, number of arguments etcetera.
Second, you want to use procedure pointers to switch between different procedures that have the same interface.
I tried the same. I did not manage to set a pointer to an interface, but I managed to make an interface with pointers.
If you have a module like this
module some_module
! This is the abstract interface for procedure pointers.
interface
subroutine shape_1_interface(arg)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: arg
end subroutine shape_1_interface
subroutine shape_2_interface(arg)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: arg
end subroutine shape_2_interface
end interface
contains
subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_1(arg)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is real",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 1"
end subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_1
subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_1(arg)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is int",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 1"
end subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_1
subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_2(arg)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is real",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 2"
end subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_2
subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_2(arg)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is int",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 2"
end subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_2
subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_3(arg)
implicit none
real, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is real",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 3"
end subroutine routine_shape_1_implementation_3
subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_3(arg)
implicit none
integer, intent(in) :: arg
write(*,*) "Arg is int",arg
write(*,*) "Implementation 3"
end subroutine routine_shape_2_implementation_3
end module some_module
then you can do in your main program:
program main
use some_module
implicit none
procedure(shape_1_interface), pointer :: routine_shape_1
procedure(shape_2_interface), pointer :: routine_shape_2
interface routine
procedure routine_shape_1
procedure routine_shape_2
end interface routine
routine_shape_1 => routine_shape_1_implementation_1
routine_shape_2 => routine_shape_2_implementation_1
call routine(4)
routine_shape_1 => routine_shape_1_implementation_2
routine_shape_2 => routine_shape_2_implementation_2
call routine(4.0)
end program main
It is a pity that when you want to set the pointers to a different implementation, you have to do that for all shapes, but the good thing is that you can just call 'routine' and you automatically get the desired function.
This is the output:
Arg is int 4
Implementation 1
Arg is real 4.00000000000000
Implementation 2