I am dusting my Fortran 90 skills. One big gotcha that always leaves me baffled is the following. Suppose you write the following program
program test implicit none call testsub() call testsub() end program subroutine testsub() implicit none integer :: var var = 0 print *, var var = 5 print *, var end subroutine
If you expect the output to be
0 5 0 5
you are right. This is indeed the output you get.
Now consider the following slight different testsub routine
subroutine testsub() implicit none integer :: var = 0 print *, var var = 5 print *, var end subroutine
See the difference ? I just coalesced the first assignment of var to the declaration line. You wouldn't expect a big difference right ? Sorry to bring the news, but that's a completely different story. The output you will obtain is
0 5 5 5
What happened? The fact arises from a very subtle point of the Fortran standard: local vars with initialization at declaration are automatically SAVE, so they preserve their content between subsequent calls (in C terms, they are local static). In other words, this statement
integer :: var = 0
is totally equivalent to
integer, save :: var = 0
This is totally counter-intuitive and a huge pitfall if you don't know it. What's the rationale behind this practice ? I asked on StackOverflow, and user kemiisto referred me to this page where this behavior is explained in rather detail. The reason is due to historical bad practices.
Apparently, initialization during declaration was already possible in Fortran 77. Usage of this variable without redefinition was allowed behavior, commonly done when you initialize and assign a parameter, for example. On the other hand, redefinition within the routine body was a disallowed practice because, according to the standard, the variable technically became undefined upon reentry.
Before standardization of Fortran 90, the actual internal handling of initialization during declaration was performed with a lot of freedom by compilers, as there was nothing specifying for that in the standard. There were two possible strategies to perform it: static initialization (doing the assignment only once), and reinitialization at every new subroutine call (doing it every time). These two solutions are equivalent, if no reassignment is done inside the subroutine, i.e. the expected practice according to the standard. Compilers were free to choose which strategy to use, but in practice, most compilers used the "initialize once and consider it static" strategy, probably because it's more efficient (you assign only once), so even if the variable was technically undefined if reassignment occurred, in practice it behaved like a static variable.
While the Fortran 90 standard was defined, a lot of code was produced abusing this behavior. As time passed, forbidding it in the new release was not feasible, because it would have introduced a lot of trouble with existing code. This was probably one of those moment in history where programmers would have learned that when something is declared undefined in the standard, it's your fault if you abuse it, and you eventually pay the consequences. The Fortran committee instead condoned and ratified this practice, and now it is part of the standard. Regardless of its status, please follow my advice and stay away from it.