(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3966) question about deallocation

[Reinhold Bader]

Hello,

Robert Corbett schrieb:
> Consider the code fragment
>
>        MODULE M
>          . . .
>          TYPE BASE
>            INTEGER I
>          CONTAINS
>            FINAL SUBR1
>          END TYPE
>          TYPE, EXTENDS(BASE) :: EXTENDED
>          CONTAINS
>            FINAL SUBR2
>          END TYPE
>          . . .
>        END MODULE
>
>        PROGRAM MAIN
>          USE M
>          TYPE(EXTENDED), POINTER :: P
>          TYPE(BASE), POINTER :: Q
>          . . .
>          ALLOCATE(P)
>          Q => P%BASE
>          . . .
>          DEALLOCATE(Q)
>          . . .
>        END
>
> Is the DEALLOCATE statement standard conforming? 
I think it isn't. Clause 6.3.3.2 of the 2003 standard says that

"If a pointer appears in a DEALLOCATE statement, it shall be associated 
with the whole of an object
that was created by allocation."

Surely this rule is also applicable for the case of type extension.

Regards
>  If so,
> are both final subroutines invoked, or is only SUBR1
> invoked?  The implementation of deallocation in Sun
> Fortran can easily be extended to support either
> semantics.
>
> Bob Corbett
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>