[MPI3 Fortran] Results of San Jose Forum meeting

[Iain Bason]

On Mar 11, 2010, at 11:59 AM, N.M. Maclaren wrote:

> On Mar 11 2010, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>> >    - Make the explicit interfaces in "use mpi" be *required* by  
>>> MPI
>>> >      implementations (they are optional right now).  This is now
>>> >      possible because of the (void*)-like behavior that is  
>>> available
>>> >      in all Fortran compilers.
>>> Are you SURE?  I am pretty sure that many don't, and won't do for a
>>> while.
>>
>> Rolf and Craig assured me that this was so -- so I defer to you  
>> experts. Keep in mind that their assurance to me was predicated  
>> that compilers may have *vendor-specific* mechanisms; they may not  
>> be the standard/blessed mechanism (yet).
>>
>> But if this is not true, then the whole plan is suspect.
>
> Indeed.  I doubt very much that NAG has, and I can't find such a  
> facility
> in the several vendors' documentation I have looked at, which doesn't
> mean that it's not there and undocumented.  But relying on  
> undocumented
> facilities is risky, even if they all had it.
>
> In particular, Rolf and Craig, what are the facilities for doing that
> in NAG, gfortran, Intel, Sun and Pathscale?  I can check all of those.

Sun has the IGNORE_TKR pragma:

http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/820-7600/aevph?a=view

Iain