[MPI3 Fortran] MPI Fortran bindings

Jim Xia jimxia at ca.ibm.com
Fri Jun 5 14:50:30 CDT 2009

> Recall that J3 was asked by Craig (representing the MPI group) to add 
> type(*) just for this reason.  That is what should be specified.  If a 
> particular implementation cannot support this in an explicit interface, 
> then it is no worse than the current <type>. I would argue that type(*) 
> is more intuitive to a Fortran programmer than <type>.  Eventually, 
> their compiler will "grow into" accepting it.  Given that many compiler 
> vendors already support some form of directive for "ignore the type in 
> interface argument checks", I don't think that type(*) will be that hard 

> for vendors to implement.

Is it wise for MPI to use something that is not currently standardized yet 
by the Fortran committee?  No body has said it's hard to implement.  The 
risk is it may never be adopted by the standard body.


Jim Xia

XL Fortran Compiler Test
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave, Markham, On, L6G 1C7
Phone (905) 413-3444  Tie-line 313-3444
email: jimxia at ca.ibm.com
D2/YF7/8200 /MKM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-fortran/attachments/20090605/67734a5f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the mpiwg-fortran mailing list