PWR063: Avoid using legacy Fortran constructs

Issue

Legacy Fortran constructs can be detrimental to code readability, maintainability, and performance.

Actions

Replace the identified legacy construct with modern Fortran statements, while preserving the original functionality of the code.

Relevance

Fortran has undergone numerous revisions since its debut in the 1950s, with Fortran 2023 as the most recent one. Each iteration has introduced more powerful features to enhance productivity, while also addressing the shortcomings of previous versions. A notable example is the once indispensable go to statement. This feature was crucial for handling program flow in the pre-structured programming era, but its usage is now heavily discouraged in favor of newer and more explicit constructs, like if/else and case.

In software development, it's common to reuse old source code due to its time-tested reliability. Hence, many modern codebases integrate legacy components. While valuable, their use of legacy Fortran constructs often makes it harder to understand the program flow, increasing the risk of errors during the maintenance or extension of old code. Moreover, this lack of clarity challenges modern Fortran compilers, as their ability to optimize code is hindered when facing complex program flows that are further obscured by the heavy usage of legacy constructs.

Programming languages typically label outdated features as "deprecated", rather than removing them entirely. This approach presents a significant challenge in manually identifying legacy constructs in codebases. Fortran compilers might not always flag these elements as problematic, as they remain compilable, or they might only generate subtle deprecation warnings that are easily missed in large project compilations.

Among current best practices for modernizing Fortran code, we can find:

• In terms of data storage:

  • Use module structures instead of common blocks for better organization and modularity.

  • Prefer real over double precision for a more standardized data type.

  • Choose modern character types over Hollerith Constants.

  • Use pointers or derived types rather than the equivalence statement to declare references to the same memory location.

  • Avoid implicit array shape changes in subroutine calls.

• For clearer program flow control:

  • Use case constructs instead of assigned or computed go to statements.

  • Replace arithmetic if statements with block if constructs.

  • Ensure that any branch to and end if statement is within the corresponding block if.

  • Use only integer control variables in do loops.

  • Replace pause with contemporary mechanisms.

  • Limit return statements to have a single exit point.

  • Avoid alternate return statements.

• Other outdated or less efficient statements to avoid include:

  • assign.

  • backspace.

  • Blank common.

  • block data.

  • data.

  • Labeled do.

Code examples

The following examples demonstrate how to enhance code readability and structure by eliminating legacy Fortran constructs. This aids programmers in understanding and maintaining their code, while also enabling compilers to apply performance optimizations more effectively.

Arithmetic if

The following example demonstrates a loop that iterates from 1 to 10 using an arithmetic if statement:

      program ArithmeticIf
        implicit none
        integer I, X(10)
        I = 1

10      continue
        X(I) = I * 10
        write(*,*) "Update X =", X(:I)
        I = I + 1
        if (I - 11) 10, 20, 30

20      continue
        write(*,*) "Final X = ", X
        stop

30      continue
        write(*,*) "Error: out of bounds!"
        stop
      end program ArithmeticIf

Although it is a simple program, using an arithmetic if to drive the flow of the loop makes the behaviour of the program less explicit than modern loop construct.

We may improve the readability, intent, and maintainability of the code if we use a modern do loop construct:

program DoLoop
  implicit none
  integer :: I, X(10)

  do I = 1, 10
    X(I) = I * 10
    write(*,*) "Update X =", X(:I)
  end do

  write(*, *) "Final X =", X
end program DoLoop

This construct provides a straightforward and safer iteration control mechanism, clearly stating its "jumps" and stop conditions.

Using common and data constructs

The following program demonstrates three global variables (i.e., A, B, C) that are shared between the main program and a subroutine using the common construct and are initialized out of line using the data construct:

      program CommonDataConstructs
        implicit none
        integer A, B, C, I
        common /MyCommonBlock/ A, B, C
        data A /10/, B /20/, C /30/

        do I = 1, 5
          call UpdateValues(I)
          write(*,*) "Update A, B, and C", A, B, C
        end do

        write(*,*) "Final A, B, and C", A, B, C
      end program CommonDataConstructs

      subroutine UpdateValues(X)
        implicit none
        integer A, B, C, X
        common /MyCommonBlock/ A, B, C

        A = A + X
        B = B * X
        C = C + A + B
      end subroutine UpdateValues

Again, although the program is simple, the common construct makes it harder to reason about the state of the variables A, B, and C and creates a hidden dependency between the main program and the subroutine that may make the code more prone to errors during modifications. Moreover, variables are initialized separately from their declarations using the data construct, thus reducing intent and clarity.

The code above may be improved if we use the module construct and declare and initialize variables simultaneously:

module MyModule
  implicit none
  integer :: A = 10, B = 20, C = 30

contains
  subroutine UpdateValues(X)
    implicit none
    integer :: X

    A = A + X
    B = B * X
    C = C + A + B
  end subroutine UpdateValues
end module MyModule

program ModernExample
  use MyModule, only : A, B, C, UpdateValues

  implicit none
  integer :: I

  do I = 1, 5
    call UpdateValues(I)
    write(*,*) "Update A, B, and C", A, B, C
  end do

  write(*,*) "Final A, B, and C", A, B, C
end program ModernExample

This alternative program is clearer and benefits from the encapsulation provided by the module construct. The subroutine and its related variables are now stored together within a module, clearly stating their relationship.

Related resources

• PWR063 examples

References

• "Fortran 90/95 Coding Conventions", Jack Carlson and Olaf David, Object Modeling System (OMS) Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University. See section "Fortran Features that are obsolescent and/or discouraged". [last checked January 2024]