[MPI3 Fortran] New Fortran proposal w.r.t. BIND(C)/logical/etc.

[Bill Long]

On 4/24/13 8:23 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Bill Long <longb at cray.com> wrote:
>
>>> There would be a huge backlash if Fortran symbols were not interceptable.
>>
>> That is exactly the opposite of what I've heard from the tools people. My impression is that they would be happy to have to only look for the C names.  Why would there be backlash in this case?
>
> Here's a backlash from an implementor :-).  I don't (and can't) always call the back-end public C symbols from Fortran.
>
> You're imposing a specific implementation scheme.  We can't allow that in the MPI spec.

I disagree with the first sentence.  I'm wanting to merely ALLOW a new 
scheme (which is  better one that the current lot, in my opinion).   So 
you are saying that disallowing better implementations is part of the 
mandate of the MPI spec?

>
> One of the reasons I really, really dislike Rolf's proposal text is that it mandates one of three implementation choices.  Not only does the MPI standard specifically stay away from all implementation issues in normative text, none of the 3 implementation choices that Rolf outlined are how Open MPI is implemented.
>

Then I see that as a problem.  We should be looking at ways to allow the 
OpenMPI implementation rather than prohibiting implementations that are 
different.

Cheers,
Bill


-- 
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