[MPI3 Fortran] [Mpi-comments] MPI 3.0: Fortran 2008 interface - issue with the LOGICAL kind

[Craig Rasmussen]

BIND(FORTRAN, name="MPI_Test_f08") seems like a great idea.  Unfortunately I can't find it in the Fortran standard :-(

Perhaps J3 would be amenable to adding FORTRAN to language-binding-spec.  

Craig Rasmussen
CAS Scientific Programmer
rasmus at cas.uoregon.edu


On Mar 21, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Hubert Ritzdorf wrote:

>> I believe the NEC Fortran MPI API may do similar things.
> 
> This is right.
> The tool guys are mainly looking for a well-defined name.
> I think that it is a bad idea to kill backward compatibility, Fortran profiling interface
> and optimization possibilities of MPI implementers in order to get  this well-defined name.
> 
> It would be possibly simpler to add a specific BIND(Fortran, name="MPI_Test_f08") to Fortran
> which sets the linker name instead of using BIND(C, name="MPI_Test_f08") and we could
> avoid all the interoperability problems which were found till now (and in future).
> 
> MPI_Test is a relatively simple function. We have much more complex functions which
> might increase scalability problems (for example additional memory
> allocation for MPI_Alltoallw in order to transform datatypes, possibly counts, displacements)
> for this requested approach. 
> 
> The upper routines/functions might become complex or
> cpu-time relevant  (example: implementation of MPI_SUBARRAYS_SUPPORTED).
> In this case, the usage of performance (or debugging) tools which ignore the work in
> this upper functions (since these tools see only the C MPI  functions) might
> become problematic.
> 
> Hubert
> ________________________________________
> From: mpi3-fortran-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mpi3-fortran-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) [jsquyres at cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 4:38 PM
> To: MPI-3 Fortran working group
> Cc: Martin Schulz
> Subject: Re: [MPI3 Fortran] [Mpi-comments] MPI 3.0: Fortran     2008 interface  -       issue with the  LOGICAL kind
> 
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 8:26 AM, Craig Rasmussen <rasmus at cas.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> 
>> I talked with Martin yesterday and he would be happy to have the requirement in the standard that the Fortran wrappers MUST call the MPI C interface.  This would much simplify things for the tools community.  (I had earlier thought he would object to this solution.)
> 
> No!  This is NOT a good idea to mandate.
> 
> Open MPI currently has a bunch of Fortran functions that do NOT call the corresponding MPI_<foo> C function.  Instead, they call some other back-end, internal function.
> 
> I believe the NEC Fortran MPI API may do similar things.
> 
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres at cisco.com
> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-fortran mailing list
> mpi3-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-fortran
> 
> 
> Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/Geaaq1rkMOPGX2PQPOmvUpJBCTqJzJUeYtFmk42MgAlOvSHOzXVuO4Ep5Wd3HnToAzNTk47hsmGOdoKZwoXR0w==  to report this email as spam.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-fortran mailing list
> mpi3-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-fortran

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-fortran/attachments/20130321/8f258231/attachment-0001.html>