Next: Working Programs, Previous: Block Data and Libraries, Up: Collected Fortran Wisdom
The meaning of a DO
loop in Fortran is precisely specified
in the Fortran standard...and is quite different from what
many programmers might expect.
In particular, Fortran iterative DO
loops are implemented as if
the number of trips through the loop is calculated before
the loop is entered.
The number of trips for a loop is calculated from the start, end, and increment values specified in a statement such as:
DO iter = start, end, increment
The trip count is evaluated using a fairly simple formula based on the three values following the `=' in the statement, and it is that trip count that is effectively decremented during each iteration of the loop. If, at the beginning of an iteration of the loop, the trip count is zero or negative, the loop terminates. The per-loop-iteration modifications to iter are not related to determining whether to terminate the loop.
There are two important things to remember about the trip count:
INTEGER(KIND=1)
.
These two items mean that there are loops that cannot
be written in straightforward fashion using the Fortran DO
.
For example, on a system with the canonical 32-bit two's-complement
implementation of INTEGER(KIND=1)
, the following loop will not work:
DO I = -2000000000, 2000000000
Although the start and end values are well within
the range of INTEGER(KIND=1)
, the trip count is not.
The expected trip count is 40000000001, which is outside
the range of INTEGER(KIND=1)
on many systems.
Instead, the above loop should be constructed this way:
I = -2000000000 DO IF (I .GT. 2000000000) EXIT ... I = I + 1 END DO
The simple DO
construct and the EXIT
statement
(used to leave the innermost loop)
are F90 features that g77 supports.
Some Fortran compilers have buggy implementations of DO
,
in that they don't follow the standard.
They implement DO
as a straightforward translation
to what, in C, would be a for
statement.
Instead of creating a temporary variable to hold the trip count
as calculated at run time, these compilers
use the iteration variable iter to control
whether the loop continues at each iteration.
The bug in such an implementation shows up when the trip count is within the range of the type of iter, but the magnitude of `ABS(end) + ABS(incr)' exceeds that range. For example:
DO I = 2147483600, 2147483647
A loop started by the above statement will work as implemented by g77, but the use, by some compilers, of a more C-like implementation akin to
for (i = 2147483600; i <= 2147483647; ++i)
produces a loop that does not terminate, because `i' can never be greater than 2147483647, since incrementing it beyond that value overflows `i', setting it to -2147483648. This is a large, negative number that still is less than 2147483647.
Another example of unexpected behavior of DO
involves
using a nonintegral iteration variable iter, that is,
a REAL
variable.
Consider the following program:
DATA BEGIN, END, STEP /.1, .31, .007/ DO 10 R = BEGIN, END, STEP IF (R .GT. END) PRINT *, R, ' .GT. ', END, '!!' PRINT *,R 10 CONTINUE PRINT *,'LAST = ',R IF (R .LE. END) PRINT *, R, ' .LE. ', END, '!!' END
A C-like view of DO
would hold that the two “exclamatory”
PRINT
statements are never executed.
However, this is the output of running the above program
as compiled by g77 on a GNU/Linux ix86 system:
.100000001 .107000001 .114 .120999999 ... .289000005 .296000004 .303000003 LAST = .310000002 .310000002 .LE. .310000002!!
Note that one of the two checks in the program turned up
an apparent violation of the programmer's expectation—yet,
the loop is correctly implemented by g77, in that
it has 30 iterations.
This trip count of 30 is correct when evaluated using
the floating-point representations for the begin,
end, and incr values (.1, .31, .007) on GNU/Linux
ix86 are used.
On other systems, an apparently more accurate trip count
of 31 might result, but, nevertheless, g77 is
faithfully following the Fortran standard, and the result
is not what the author of the sample program above
apparently expected.
(Such other systems might, for different values in the DATA
statement, violate the other programmer's expectation,
for example.)
Due to this combination of imprecise representation
of floating-point values and the often-misunderstood
interpretation of DO
by standard-conforming
compilers such as g77, use of DO
loops
with REAL
iteration
variables is not recommended.
Such use can be caught by specifying -Wsurprising.
See Warning Options, for more information on this
option.