[MPI3 Fortran] MPI function symbol naming convention for tools

Jeff Squyres jsquyres at cisco.com
Thu Jun 23 10:50:41 CDT 2011

Craig -- see my reply.  I think tools will need to support both for a while (i.e., while there's still implementations with the old way out there).

But eventually all implementations will move to the new way, and the 4 old conventions (MPI_SEND, mpi_send, mpi_send_, mpi_send__) will go away.

That's my $0.02, at least...

On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Rasmussen, Craig E wrote:

> On Jun 23, 2011, at 1:39 AM, Martin Schulz wrote:
>>>> In another sense, if we mandate specific symbols for mpif.h/use mpi, we might break some tools, but put ourselves in a better place for the future.  Since a tool already has to sense which back-end symbol to use mpif.h/use mpi (lower case, caps, 1 underscore, 2 underscores -- none of which are mandated by the Fortran spec, by the way; it's just common convention), is it really a hardship to add another symbol name to check during the tools configuration/building mechanism?
>> I am more worrying about existing tools - those would all
>> have to be changed.
>> Martin
> Could you comment on the possibility of deprecating what is essentially the current mpif.h tool access.
> -craig
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-fortran mailing list
> mpi3-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-fortran

Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to:

More information about the mpiwg-fortran mailing list