CMPAMBIG

Ambiguous use of intrinsic intrinsic ...

The type of the argument to the invocation of the intrinsic intrinsic is a COMPLEX type other than COMPLEX(KIND=1). Typically, it is COMPLEX(KIND=2), also known as DOUBLE COMPLEX.

The interpretation of this invocation depends on the particular dialect of Fortran for which the code was written. Some dialects convert the real part of the argument to REAL(KIND=1), thus losing precision; other dialects, and Fortran 90, do no such conversion.

So, GNU Fortran rejects such invocations except under certain circumstances, to avoid making an incorrect assumption that results in generating the wrong code.

To determine the dialect of the program unit, perhaps even whether that particular invocation is properly coded, determine how the result of the intrinsic is used.

The result of intrinsic is expected (by the original programmer) to be REAL(KIND=1) (the non-Fortran-90 interpretation) if:

• It is passed as an argument to a procedure that explicitly or implicitly declares that argument REAL(KIND=1). For example, a procedure with no DOUBLE PRECISION or IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION statement specifying the dummy argument corresponding to an actual argument of `REAL(Z)', where `Z' is declared DOUBLE COMPLEX, strongly suggests that the programmer expected `REAL(Z)' to return REAL(KIND=1) instead of REAL(KIND=2).
• It is used in a context that would otherwise not include any REAL(KIND=2) but where treating the intrinsic invocation as REAL(KIND=2) would result in unnecessary promotions and (typically) more expensive operations on the wider type. For example:

  DOUBLE COMPLEX Z
  ...
  R(1) = T * REAL(Z)
  

  The above example suggests the programmer expected the real part of `Z' to be converted to REAL(KIND=1) before being multiplied by `T' (presumed, along with `R' above, to be type REAL(KIND=1)). Otherwise, the conversion would have to be delayed until after the multiplication, requiring not only an extra conversion (of `T' to REAL(KIND=2)), but a (typically) more expensive multiplication (a double-precision multiplication instead of a single-precision one).

The result of intrinsic is expected (by the original programmer) to be REAL(KIND=2) (the Fortran 90 interpretation) if:

• It is passed as an argument to a procedure that explicitly or implicitly declares that argument REAL(KIND=2). For example, a procedure specifying a DOUBLE PRECISION dummy argument corresponding to an actual argument of `REAL(Z)', where `Z' is declared DOUBLE COMPLEX, strongly suggests that the programmer expected `REAL(Z)' to return REAL(KIND=2) instead of REAL(KIND=1).
• It is used in an expression context that includes other REAL(KIND=2) operands, or is assigned to a REAL(KIND=2) variable or array element. For example:

  DOUBLE COMPLEX Z
  DOUBLE PRECISION R, T
  ...
  R(1) = T * REAL(Z)
  

  The above example suggests the programmer expected the real part of `Z' to not be converted to REAL(KIND=1) by the REAL() intrinsic. Otherwise, the conversion would have to be immediately followed by a conversion back to REAL(KIND=2), losing the original, full precision of the real part of Z, before being multiplied by `T'.

Once you have determined whether a particular invocation of intrinsic expects the Fortran 90 interpretation, you can:

• Change it to `DBLE(expr)' (if intrinsic is `REAL') or `DIMAG(expr)' (if intrinsic is `AIMAG') if it expected the Fortran 90 interpretation. This assumes expr is COMPLEX(KIND=2)---if it is some other type, such as COMPLEX*32, you should use the appropriate intrinsic, such as the one to convert to REAL*16 (perhaps DBLEQ() in place of DBLE(), and QIMAG() in place of DIMAG()).
• Change it to `REAL(intrinsic(expr))', otherwise. This converts to REAL(KIND=1) in all working Fortran compilers.

If you don't want to change the code, and you are certain that all ambiguous invocations of intrinsic in the source file have the same expectation regarding interpretation, you can:

• Compile with the g77 option `-ff90', to enable the Fortran 90 interpretation.
• Compile with the g77 options `-fno-f90 -fugly-complex', to enable the non-Fortran-90 interpretations.

See section REAL() and AIMAG() of Complex, for more information on this issue.

Note: If the above suggestions don't produce enough evidence as to whether a particular program expects the Fortran 90 interpretation of this ambiguous invocation of intrinsic, there is one more thing you can try.

If you have access to most or all the compilers used on the program to create successfully tested and deployed executables, read the documentation for, and also test out, each compiler to determine how it treats the intrinsic intrinsic in this case. (If all the compilers don't agree on an interpretation, there might be lurking bugs in the deployed versions of the program.)

The following sample program might help:

      PROGRAM JCB003
C
C Written by James Craig Burley 1997-02-23.
C Contact via Internet email: burley@gnu.org
C
C Determine how compilers handle non-standard REAL
C and AIMAG on DOUBLE COMPLEX operands.
C
      DOUBLE COMPLEX Z
      REAL R
      Z = (3.3D0, 4.4D0)
      R = Z
      CALL DUMDUM(Z, R)
      R = REAL(Z) - R
      IF (R .NE. 0.) PRINT *, 'REAL() is Fortran 90'
      IF (R .EQ. 0.) PRINT *, 'REAL() is not Fortran 90'
      R = 4.4D0
      CALL DUMDUM(Z, R)
      R = AIMAG(Z) - R
      IF (R .NE. 0.) PRINT *, 'AIMAG() is Fortran 90'
      IF (R .EQ. 0.) PRINT *, 'AIMAG() is not Fortran 90'
      END
C
C Just to make sure compiler doesn't use naive flow
C analysis to optimize away careful work above,
C which might invalidate results....
C
      SUBROUTINE DUMDUM(Z, R)
      DOUBLE COMPLEX Z
      REAL R
      END

If the above program prints contradictory results on a particular compiler, run away!

Go to the first, previous, next, last section, table of contents.