[MPIWG Fortran] Topics to discuss

N.M. Maclaren nmm1 at cam.ac.uk
Thu Dec 12 16:46:46 CST 2013

On Dec 12 2013, Bill Long wrote:
>>> 3. What's the plan for deprecating mpif.h in MPI-4?
>> Just do it.  Do it now.
>Since Jeff S. knows that I was in favor of *deleting* this in MPI 3.0, 
>no surprise I agree.  It's been 20+ years that a better alternative 
>(modules) has existed.   The source code changes in applications are 
>simple (trivial) to switch to using a module.

The trouble is that MPI 2.2 required mpif.h, but only advised the module.
Not that I disagree with you about the module being uniformly preferable.

Yes, deprecate it, and deprecate it now.

>> I think we should deprecate without intent to delete but rather to
>> prevent F77-like semantics from hamstringing us forever, i.e. not
>> create new features with F77 bindings ala C++ in MPI-2.2+.

I think that it should be deprecated with intent to delete.

>>> 4. Do we want to deprecate the mpi module?  This is a complex issue.
>> Yes.  No, it's not :-)
>I'm in the middle here. ...

And me.

Nick Maclaren.

More information about the mpiwg-fortran mailing list