[MPI3 Fortran] Deprecate mpif.h?
longb at cray.com
Wed Mar 3 13:03:03 CST 2010
Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> As far as I understand, it is valid that an MPI implementation
>> defines mpif.h with exactly one line:
>> use mpi
>> because all compilers are Fortran 90 compilers
>> and use mpi is allowed in free and fixed form sources.
> Yes, I think that's right, too.
> So I've been calling them the "implicit interfaces" -- I guess that's wrong, too. Sigh. Now I'll have to think of a better name. :-)
>> As far as I know, IBM and NEC are doing argument checking with
>> "use mpi" and also with "include 'mpif.h'".
> What do you mean -- that they have an mpif.h that just does "use mpi"?
> Question: if you "implicit none", doesn't that change where you can include an mpif.h, depending on whether it has "use mpi" or one that doesn't? That seems to be unportable to me.
This would be an issue. USE statements come before IMPLICIT statements,
whereas ordinary declarations come after. You could nest things the
other way around, with
end module mpi
assuming everything you wanted in the module is also in the mpif.h file,
and the .h file contained only the sort of declarations that are legal
in a module. I assume the motivation here is to have just one file to
>> If there is a difference between "use mpi" and "use mpi3" for
>> buffer arguments, then argument checking together with "use mpi"
>> must implement the buf arguments as "unchecked" arguments,
>> and not with the new features coming in Fortran 2008.
> I thought that J3 gave us a format to use for un-typed buffers, and even though full F08 compilers won't be available for a while, this feature was likely to start becoming available in the near future...?
The TYPE(*) declaration is actually being included in a TR that is being
done in parallel with the F08 standard. When such things become
available in production compilers depends on the order in which vendors
choose to implement new features, which in turn depends on customer
demands. Given the size of the MPI community, I would expect a request
from your users to carry considerable weight. I don't think that
TYPE(*) will be difficult for vendors to implement.
>> In this case I would strongly recommend
>> - not to deprecate "use mpi" nor "include mpif.h", and
>> - all vendors add the IBM/NEC hack (void arguments) to their
>> Fortran compiler, and
Many vendors provide some sort of 'hack' to allow for 'typeless' buffer
arguments in interfaces, such as are used by MPI. The TYPE(*) proposal
was an attempt to provide a common syntax for portable code. That
would be the preferred way forward.
> What about Fortran codes that don't use a preprocessor?
I would discourage any requirement for preprocessing. A well-written
portable code should not require preprocessing.
Bill Long longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142
Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101
More information about the mpiwg-fortran