[MPI3 Fortran] Deprecate mpif.h?

Bill Long longb at cray.com
Fri Mar 5 10:33:17 CST 2010

N.M. Maclaren wrote:

> Fine.  But, in that case, won't you also have to revalidate and
> recertify if you change to using non-blocking collectives, anyway?
> I should SERIOUSLY hope that you are, as adding more asynchronicity is
> one of the most common causes of introducing errors into 'working and
> tested' programs.  If any 'safety critical' project does NOT require
> that when changing from synchronous to asynchronous primitives, even in
> minor ways, the people who specify the revalidation and recertification
> requirements should be shot.

In my experience with codes like this, the tendency is to go overboard 
in the other direction.  ANY change to the sources, or to the system 
libraries that are linked in, causes recertification. Thus, such codes 
are linked statically to avoid the side effects of OS upgrades.   I even 
had one experience where a suggested change to a *comment* (which said 
something that was false) in a subroutine was rejected on grounds that 
the cost of recertification was too high.


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 mailing list