[MPIWG Fortran] MPI-3 ticket 349: Fortran question
Rolf Rabenseifner
rabenseifner at hlrs.de
Thu Dec 12 11:34:41 CST 2013
Dear Jim,
I would like to disagree.
Looking at #349, I see wording like "base address" etc.
whereas MPI-3.0 p102.29 uses "absolute address".
And, the ticket does not show the location of the new text,
nor all the needed background info.
MPI is a standard document and the proposed change
(absolute addresses can no longer be used in
normal arithmetic) should be well prepared.
The current text is not ready.
You start to differentiate between "absolute addresses"
and "relative displacements" and their use of MPI_Aint.
Please have a look at 2.5.6 on page 16.
This section should be clarified.
Please try to produce one proposal that is complete
and fits to the standard.
Voting in small pieces (several tickets) is not the best.
Best regards
Rolf
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Dinan" <james.dinan at gmail.com>
> To: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner at hlrs.de>
> Cc: "MPI-WG Fortran working group" <mpiwg-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org>, "longb" <longb at cray.com>, "Jim Dinan"
> <dinan at mcs.anl.gov>
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:51:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI-3 ticket 349: Fortran question
>
>
> Hi Rolf,
>
>
> Thanks for the corrections -- I apologize, what I had sent was a very
> rough draft of the proposal. I applied your changes to the
> proposal, cleaned some things up, and added the datatypes examples
> corrections. Could you take another look when you get a chance?
>
>
> In terms of proposal logistics, I would like to let MPI_Aint add and
> diff tickets progress independently. I agree that they need to be
> together, and I think we can rely on the chapter committee to handle
> that if add/diff end up split between two versions of the standard.
> MPI_Aint_diff should be ready for a reading at the next meeting and
> MPI_Aint_add will be ready for a first vote. Given the discussion
> about MPI 3.x/4.0 timeline yesterday, I think the risk of these not
> being in the same release of the spec is very low. Since the Forum
> has already done all of the work required to move MPI_Aint_add to a
> vote, I would prefer not to rewind this process by merging it with
> the diff ticket.
>
>
> ~Jim.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <
> rabenseifner at hlrs.de > wrote:
>
>
> Jim and all,
>
> MPI_Get_address((char *) addr1 - (char *) addr2, &result)
>
> This is really wrong, because (char *) addr1 - (char *) addr2
> is not an address and cannot be used as input to MPI_Get_address.
>
> (char *) addr1 - (char *) addr2 is a displacement.
>
> Both tickets 349 and 404 need to be together, because they
> are based on a clear distinguishing between
> - Location in memory (input of MPI_GET_ADDRESS), e.g. x, y
> - absolute addresses (output of MPI_GET_ADDRESS), e.g., addr_x,
> addr_y
> - relative displacements (diff of two absolute addresses), e.g.
> dist_xy
>
> Your new statement is that calculations like
> dist_xy = addr_y - addr_x
> addr_y = addr_x + dist_xy
> need to be done by subroutine calls or functions,
> because absolute addresses are stored in MPI_Aint variables
> through some (unknown/strange) mapping,
> wheras relative displacements are normal unsigned integers
> that can be used for normal arithmetic.
>
> The one ticket must show this clearly and must be integrated into
> section 4.1.5
>
>
> Best regards
> Rolf
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> > From: "Jim Dinan" < james.dinan at gmail.com >
> > To: "Rolf Rabenseifner" < rabenseifner at hlrs.de >
> > Cc: "MPI-WG Fortran working group" <
> > mpiwg-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org >, "longb" < longb at cray.com >,
> > "Jim Dinan"
> > < dinan at mcs.anl.gov >
> > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:20:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI-3 ticket 349: Fortran question
> >
> >
> > Hi Rolf,
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much for the feedback! Sorry if I forgot to
> > respond;
> > the comments definitely were not ignored. We discussed the Aint
> > difference calculation in the working group and decided to create
> > an
> > additional ticket for MPI_Aint_disp. We did not see a clean way to
> > handle this in MPI_Aint_add, because both arguments need to be
> > handled as unsigned in the arithmetic.
> >
> >
> > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/404
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a list of fixes the to the datatypes examples that I'll post
> > to the ticket soon.
> >
> >
> > Jeff Squyres is also helping us move the MPI_Aint arithmetic
> > routines
> > to functions in the Fortran bindings. Should be done today.
> >
> >
> > Were there any other concerns that we missed?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > ~Jim.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner <
> > rabenseifner at hlrs.de > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jeff and Bill,
> >
> > <
> > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/349#comment:22
> > >
> > was ignored.
> > The answer seems to be yes and the clear implication is that
> > we need also a routine to calculate disp := addr2-addr1
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Rolf
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" < jsquyres at cisco.com >
> > > To: "< longb at cray.com >" < longb at cray.com >, "MPI-WG Fortran
> > > working group" < mpiwg-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org >
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 12:17:40 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI-3 ticket 349: Fortran question
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me.
> > >
> > > Rolf -- is there any MPI reason we would not want to do this?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Bill Long < longb at cray.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/11/13 11:27 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> > > >> This ticket got a formal reading today at the Forum:
> > > >>
> > > >> http://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/349
> > > >> (as of this writing, there's still a BIND(C) in there, but
> > > >> it
> > > >> will be removed shortly)
> > > >>
> > > >> The function is basically intended to perform a mathematical
> > > >> operation. As such, I think that the 2 Fortran bindings
> > > >> should
> > > >> be FUNCTIONs, not SUBROUTINEs (a la MPI_WTICK/MPI_WTIME).
> > > >>
> > > >> Do you agree? If so, the ticket author (Jim Dinan) is
> > > >> amenable
> > > >> to
> > > >> changing the Fortran bindings to the following (and I'm
> > > >> assuming
> > > >> I have the syntax below correct, but feel free to correct me
> > > >> if
> > > >> they're wrong):
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Certainly it makes more sense for these to be functions in
> > > > Fortran.
> > > > Particularly if the programmer prefers supply an interface and
> > > > call the C form directly. If the C and Fortran versions are
> > > > both
> > > > functions, there is no change in the source code where the
> > > > function is used.
> > > >
> > > >> -----
> > > >> 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
> > > >
> > > > It is certainly an oddity that the spec has two forms like
> > > > this.
> > > > Any version of the Fortran standard that supports KIND= in
> > > > INTEGER also supports lower case names and INTENT() attributes.
> > > > Maybe there could be some clean up of this in a future
> > > > revision.
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > mpiwg-fortran mailing list
> > > > mpiwg-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeff Squyres
> > > jsquyres at cisco.com
> > > For corporate legal information go to:
> > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpiwg-fortran mailing list
> > > mpiwg-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email
> > rabenseifner at hlrs.de
> > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone
> > ++49(0)711/685-65530
> > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 /
> > 685-65832
> > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . .
> > www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner
> > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room
> > 1.307)
> >
> >
>
> --
> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner at hlrs.de
> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530
> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832
> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner
> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307)
>
>
--
Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner at hlrs.de
High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530
University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832
Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner
Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307)
More information about the mpiwg-fortran
mailing list