[MPIWG Fortran] ticket 351
longb at cray.com
Tue Oct 22 10:50:02 CDT 2013
Here's the program:
character(50) :: value
call get_command_argument (0, value)
print *, trim(value)
end program test_command
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.
> * 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.
>> 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.
>>> Nick Maclaren.
>>> mpiwg-fortran mailing list
>>> mpiwg-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org
>> 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
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
More information about the mpiwg-fortran