# Question about ENTRY and DATA **URL:** \ **Category:** Help\ **Created:** [February 3, 2024, 7:48pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/question-about-entry-and-data/7329 "2024-02-03T19:48:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jacobwilliams](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/jacobwilliams/32/10_2.png) [@jacobwilliams](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/jacobwilliams)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2024, 7:48pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/question-about-entry-and-data/7329/1 "2024-02-03T19:48:31Z")
Consider the following code: ```fortran subroutine a() implicit none real :: u(3) print*, 'a' goto 1 entry b() print*, 'b' data u/ 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 / 1 print*, u ! what is u here ? end subroutine a program main call a() end program main ``` The result (using latest gfortran) is: ```auto a 0.100000001 0.200000003 0.300000012 ``` Which I guess sort of suprised me. I would have thought that since the `b()` entry was never called, that `data` statement was not executed, but I guess it is? Is that normal for a `data` statement? ---
**Author:** ![jacobwilliams](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/jacobwilliams/32/10_2.png) [@jacobwilliams](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/jacobwilliams)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2024, 7:52pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/question-about-entry-and-data/7329/2 "2024-02-03T19:52:03Z")
It seems that this refactoring is the same thing: ```fortran subroutine a() implicit none real,save :: u(3) = [0.1, 0.2, 0.3] print*, 'a' goto 1 entry b() print*, 'b' 1 print*, u end subroutine a ``` Is that right? ---
**Author:** ![urbanjost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/0ea827/32.png) [@urbanjost](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/urbanjost)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2024, 8:32pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/question-about-entry-and-data/7329/3 "2024-02-03T20:32:28Z")
Placing the DATA statements anywhere in the body of the subroutine should be flagged as non-standard if you add the flags to enforce standard conformance. DATA statements are not executables, but are used to initialize the routine at start-up not on each call, so the refactoring is equivalent. In cases where the values will not be changed it is preferable to use PARAMETER instead of SAVE, but the fact they are not changed is not the general case and this is just a small example. In new code using ENTRY is generally deprecated in favor of other methods such as using CONTAINS and a conditional: ```fortran subroutine a(flag) ! shared declarations and code if(flag) then call b() else call c() endif contains subroutine (b) end subroutine (c) end You can even pass in the routine name and eliminate the conditional and so on. https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/should-the-entry-statement-be-used-in-new-code/2636 https://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Modernizing+Old+Fortran ``` ---
**Author:** ![sblionel](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/sblionel/32/853_2.png) [@sblionel](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/sblionel)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2024, 8:42pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/question-about-entry-and-data/7329/4 "2024-02-03T20:42:46Z")
> [@urbanjost](#): > > Placing the DATA statements anywhere in the body of the subroutine should be flagged as non-standard if you add the flags to enforce standard conformance. DATA statements may appear almost anywhere in a program unit, but they are indeed not executable. ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/fortran_lang/original/2X/9/942454c1238be770b2ddae6bd3ba7846f0362115.png) ---
**Author:** ![urbanjost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/0ea827/32.png) [@urbanjost](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/urbanjost)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2024, 8:55pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/question-about-entry-and-data/7329/5 "2024-02-03T20:55:03Z")
It is just considered obsolescent. I used to do it a lot, but I always place them after the declarations and before the executable statements if I use them now. I guess I phrased that a little too strongly. Probably no compiler enforces not allowing it(?) ```fortran gfortran --std=f2018 nodata.f90 nodata.f90:3:11: 3 | data a/100/ | 1 Warning: Obsolescent feature: DATA statement at (1) after the first executable statement urbanjs@mercury:~$ cat nodata.f90 program nodata write(*,*)a data a/100/ end program nodata urbanjs@mercury:~$ ./a.out 100.000000 ``` ---
**Author:** ![sblionel](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/sblionel/32/853_2.png) [@sblionel](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/sblionel)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2024, 8:59pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/question-about-entry-and-data/7329/6 "2024-02-03T20:59:32Z")
Yes, the placement is obsolescent, but not deleted. Compilers are required to be able to diagnose the usage. ---
**Author:** ![urbanjost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/0ea827/32.png) [@urbanjost](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/urbanjost)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2024, 9:03pm UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/question-about-entry-and-data/7329/7 "2024-02-03T21:03:14Z")
There is one case where a small module is an easy replacement for a procedure with multiple entries. When no executable statements are shared, just data: ```fortran module M_ ! when what is shared between entries is declarations and data ! a module is an easy replacement. Gets more complicated if ! there is shared text as well. ! shared stuff implicit none private public case1, case2 integer, parameter :: ivals(3) = [100, 200, 300] contains subroutine case1() write (*, *) 'case1', ivals end subroutine case1 subroutine case2() write (*, *) 'case2', ivals end subroutine case2 end module M_ program noentry use M_, only: case1, case2 implicit none call case1() call case2() end program noentry ``` ---
**Author:** ![mecej4](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/mecej4/32/855_2.png) [@mecej4](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/mecej4)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2024, 1:14am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/question-about-entry-and-data/7329/8 "2024-02-04T01:14:36Z")
It can be confusing to apply a current or recent version of the Fortran standard to a program in which old/obsolescent features are combined with features that were not present in Fortran 77. The table that @sblionel showed appears to rule out DATA statements in internal procedures, but they are allowed. ```auto subroutine a() implicit none real :: u(3) character ep data u/ 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 /, ep/'a'/ goto 1 entry b() ep = 'b' data u/ 0.3, 0.2, 0.1 / ! u is already initialized; error or no effect? 1 print *, ep, u ! what is u here ? end subroutine a program main call a() call b() call c() CONTAINS subroutine c() character ep real u(2) data u/0.5,0.6/, ep/'c'/ print *,ep,u end subroutine c end program main ``` Try Gfortran on this version with and without -fstd=f2008. Try other compilers. ---
**Author:** ![sblionel](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/fortran-lang.discourse.group/sblionel/32/853_2.png) [@sblionel](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/u/sblionel)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2024, 1:23am UTC](https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/question-about-entry-and-data/7329/9 "2024-02-04T01:23:24Z")
> [@mecej4](#): > > The table that @sblionel showed appears to rule out DATA statements in internal procedures, but they are allowed. No it doesn’t. Internal procedures are subroutines or functions, so you start at the top again.The next table in the standard reflects that: ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/fortran_lang/original/2X/2/2baf4e74faf1c3b2d9697bcf92749955ae4db331.png)