[MPI3 Fortran] MPI Fortran bindings
donev1 at llnl.gov
Fri Jun 5 15:35:18 CDT 2009
On Friday 05 June 2009 13:17, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> the functionality *does* exist, even if
> it is not in the language standard.
Except that, it is slightly different in every compiler, in ways that
you won't get even if you read the documentation. If you pass an
integer/real contiguous buffer, it will likely work as expected.
Otherwise, all bets are off.
If you really want to specify that what you want is equivalent to what
we have proposed to the Fortran committee (TYPE(*)), which requires
more than one sentence to fully specify or explain (so simply
saying "you know what I mean" will not do), then you can simply cut and
paste our latest description of TYPE(*) (Bill can send that to this
list) and put it as part of the MPI specification.
> While we (MPI) clearly don't
> want to use a pre-standard form that may or may not be accepted,
> *some* notation is needed to denote this (potentially
> vendor-specific) behavior in the bindings.
Again, denoting a non-existing or unspecified thing does not make it
You can give all the "succinct" sentences you want...just because they
are short does not mean they are clear. You are simply glossing over
> 2. A second issue is that there is some debate as to whether INTENT
> is useful. I think that most people are saying yes, but Aleks is
> saying it's not that important.
Don't listen to Aleks on that one and add INTENTs if it makes someone
More information about the mpiwg-fortran