[MPI3 Fortran] Results of San Jose Forum meeting
Iain.Bason at Sun.COM
Thu Mar 11 11:43:43 CST 2010
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
>>> > implementations (they are optional right now). This is now
>>> > possible because of the (void*)-like behavior that is
>>> > in all Fortran compilers.
>>> Are you SURE? I am pretty sure that many don't, and won't do for a
>> 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
> in the several vendors' documentation I have looked at, which doesn't
> mean that it's not there and undocumented. But relying on
> 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:
More information about the mpiwg-fortran