From: Lorents on 11 Nov 2009 13:18 I have an old Fortran77style program which does this kind of thing: program test integer, parameter :: nMax=5 double precision :: A(nMax,nMax) double precision :: x(nMax*nMax) equivalence (A, x) (manipulations on A and on x) end program test In other words, an array and a vector are EQUIVALENCE'd and manipulated. I was wondering if one can do this kind in F95. Of course I could skip the EQUIVALENCE statement, allocate both A and x and then use e.g. x = RESHAPE(A, /nMAX*nMAX/) but this would need twice the RAM as both A and x need to be stored. I think the best solution would be to avoid this kind of things at all, but I'd like to know if there is a more modern way of achieving the same result as the old EQUIVALENCE without using twice the memory. Lorenzo
From: dpb on 11 Nov 2009 13:39 Lorents wrote: > I have an old Fortran77style program which does this kind of thing: > > program test > integer, parameter :: nMax=5 > double precision :: A(nMax,nMax) > double precision :: x(nMax*nMax) > equivalence (A, x) > > (manipulations on A and on x) > > end program test > > In other words, an array and a vector are EQUIVALENCE'd and manipulated. > I was wondering if one can do this kind in F95. Yes. .... > I think the best solution would be to avoid this kind of things at all, > but I'd like to know if there is a more modern way of achieving the same > result as the old EQUIVALENCE without using twice the memory. In general, I'd agree w/ the former but I'd not worry about it too much in existing code. As for the latter, EQUIVALENCE is still in the Standard (and will stay as there's simply too much existent code in use that relies on it to make any chance of it being removed nonexistent) so there's no need. I don't know of any other way to achieve the result any more simply other than by dummy arguments and subroutines that move the alternate variables to a different name space but there would be many code constructions where that would be far more convoluted than simply the EQUIVALENCE. All in all, maybe I'm showing my age here ( :) ), but I'd probably leave it alone unless it were just as simple to simply remove one variable entirely. 
From: Gordon Sande on 11 Nov 2009 14:27 On 20091111 14:18:42 0400, Lorents <lorents(a)amp.te> said: > I have an old Fortran77style program which does this kind of thing: > > program test > integer, parameter :: nMax=5 > double precision :: A(nMax,nMax) > double precision :: x(nMax*nMax) > equivalence (A, x) > > (manipulations on A and on x) > > end program test > > In other words, an array and a vector are EQUIVALENCE'd and manipulated. > I was wondering if one can do this kind in F95. Of course I could skip > the EQUIVALENCE statement, allocate both A and x and then use e.g. > x = RESHAPE(A, /nMAX*nMAX/) > but this would need twice the RAM as both A and x need to be stored. > I think the best solution would be to avoid this kind of things at all, > but I'd like to know if there is a more modern way of achieving the > same result as the old EQUIVALENCE without using twice the memory. > > Lorenzo Equivalence is still alive and well and living in Fortran! Most uses of it are to be avoided but most is not the same as all. So "It depends!". The real question is whether this is just memory usage saving where A and x are used separately and never mixed or is there some reason why two alternate indexing schemes are being used for the same data? In the first case you can just omit the equivalence as an ancient untidiness but in the second case you will need to understand the fine details of the program. "Manipulations on A and x" does not answer the question so you will need to say more.
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 11 Nov 2009 16:51 Lorents <lorents(a)amp.te> wrote: > I have an old Fortran77style program which does this kind of thing: > program test > integer, parameter :: nMax=5 > double precision :: A(nMax,nMax) > double precision :: x(nMax*nMax) > equivalence (A, x) > (manipulations on A and on x) > end program test > In other words, an array and a vector are EQUIVALENCE'd and manipulated. > I was wondering if one can do this kind in F95. Of course I could skip > the EQUIVALENCE statement, allocate both A and x and then use e.g. > x = RESHAPE(A, /nMAX*nMAX/) As long as you don't need dynamic allocation, EQUIVALENCE should be fine. There are some restrictions on EQUIVALENCE using Fortran 90 features that you might run into. > but this would need twice the RAM as both A and x need to be stored. > I think the best solution would be to avoid this kind of things at all, > but I'd like to know if there is a more modern way of achieving the same > result as the old EQUIVALENCE without using twice the memory. You don't say how you use either A or x, which could make a difference in the answer. If you use RESHAPE in an array expression, it is possible, maybe even likely, that you get a temporary array, but in some cases one might not be needed. Unless you are on a very small processor, if nMAX is 5 I wouldn't worry about it. Temporary arrays can be slow, and can surprise you with the needed memory, but sometimes they really are needed.  glen
From: Arjan on 12 Nov 2009 03:47 > double precision :: A(nMax,nMax) > double precision :: x(nMax*nMax) > equivalence (A, x) > x = RESHAPE(A, /nMAX*nMAX/) It wouldn't save you the RAM, but I would use x = TRANSFER(A,x) That's not just syntax! With RESHAPE source and destination must be arrays of the same type, e.g. arrays of REAL(R4KIND). With TRANSFER only the size in BYTES must match. Suppose you have this in your subroutine: CHARACTER*4 :: DumStr INTEGER*4 :: J EQUIVALENCE(J,DumStr) This cannot be resolved with RESHAPE (I think). With TRANSFER it would be: CHARACTER*4 :: DumStr INTEGER*4 :: J DumStr = TRANSFER(J,DumStr) I use this often to convert to and from BITrepresentations, e.g. when reading binary files with a pathological structure. Regards, Arjan

Next

Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Cantera Next: Can teh backend processing for a sophisticated Website be written in Fortran? 