[MPIWG Fortran] MPI-3 ticket 349: Fortran question

[Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)]

On Dec 12, 2013, at 1:42 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner at hlrs.de> wrote:

> About the Fortran Interfaces:
> We should keep the old style without INTENT, because for the old-style
> the implementor has the freedom to add INTENT as he/she wants
> and it is still compliant with the outcome of the definition.

Ok.

> I do not see, why we have a function in C and a subroutine
> in Fortran.
> Like MPI_Wtime, in all three languages (C, new and old Fortran), 
> we should do the same.

Ok, we all agree -- I'll put this on the ticket and Jim can update his proposal:

>>>> INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND) MPI_Aint_add(base, disp)
>>>>    INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND), INTENT(IN) ::  base, disp
>>>> 
>>>> INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND) MPI_AINT_ADD(BASE, DISP)
>>>>    INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND) BASE, DISP


-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/