[MPIWG Fortran] ticket 351

[Bill Long]

Here's the program:

program test_command

   character(50) :: value

   call get_command_argument (0, value)
   print *, trim(value)

end program test_command

Cheers,
Bill



On 10/22/13 10:44 AM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
> I am hesitant to assume this problem is resolved just because all
> Linux-based clusters are fine with this*.  I don't think that this
> will be compiler sensitive either, so testing 5 compilers doesn't
> prove much.  Testing 5 process launchers might.
>
> Best,
>
> Jeff
>
> * This is not meant to disparage Cray by suggesting their machines
> behave like Linux clusters in terms of the process environment;
> rather, this is a good thing.
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Bill Long <longb at cray.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> I admit that the Fortran standard is (intentionally) vague about what
>> constitutes a "command line".  However, I tried the 5 compilers I have
>> available (Cray, Intel, PGI, gfortran, Pathscale) with a simple program that
>> prints argument 0 == the "command name by which the program was invoked",
>> and in all cases the launcher text  (aprun -n1 ) was ignored and the program
>> printed "./a.out".    Not conclusive, but suggests that the vendors have
>> figured out what the right "quality of implementation" action is here.  If
>> there are examples to the contrary, I'd be interested in knowing about them.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/22/13 10:12 AM, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 22 2013, Bill Long wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) I don't really see the point of this at all.  The user can just
>>>> call the native Fortran intrinsics directly.  Why should there be a
>>>> duplicate version that starts with MPI_ ?  I would suggest, instead,
>>>> that you just add a note in the spec (advice to users) point out that
>>>> Fortran programmers can access the command line arguments using the
>>>> language intrinsics.   Maybe someone can convince me this is not
>>>> adequate, but I've been using those intrinsics with parallel programs
>>>> for some time and they work just fine.
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume that the desire for this is to support the systems which do not
>>> use a mpiexec/mpirun command, but fire up MPI directly, as IBM poe does.
>>>
>>> However, I have always felt that the original C approach was a horrible
>>> hack, just as having C's argument list (and arguments) writable is.
>>> There were good reasons at the time but, given that Fortran has done
>>> without it with little to no trouble for so long, I agree with Bill.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Nick Maclaren.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpiwg-fortran mailing list
>>> mpiwg-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
>

-- 
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