[Mpi3-bwcompat] Notes from ATL Forum meeting

Jeff Squyres jsquyres at [hidden]
Fri Feb 5 12:44:33 CST 2010

On Jan 22, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:

>  * What to do about the proposed MPI-3 explicit Fortran bindings (the
>    so-called "F03 bindings")?  We could use function overloading and
>    forego the suffix approach that is necessary in C.  But this was
>    deemed to be a bad idea -- it seemed better to keep function name
>    parity with C.  So have both an MPI_File_write with int count and
>    MPI_File_writeL with MPI_Count count in the "F03" bindings.

One more point here: there should be no "integer" version of MPI_FILE_WRITE in the F03 bindings because they're new.  This follows the same precedent of "no int versions of non-blocking collectives".  There should only be MPI_FILE_WRITE<suffix> in the F03 bindings that takes an argument of the MPI_COUNT variety (exact type tbd; probably a KIND sort of thing).

Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]>
Cisco.com - http://www.cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to:

More information about the Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list