[MPIWG Fortran] Question about an argument of MPI_Testall
jczhang at mcs.anl.gov
Wed Mar 12 10:43:14 CDT 2014
That makes sense.
I found MPI_STATUS_IGNORE and MPI_STATUSES_IGNORE are a subtle issue in
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <
jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:
> Rolf R. just reminded me off-list what the real reason is:
> We can't know what the (count) will be, but you still must be able to pass
> MPI_STATUSES_IGNORE through that dummy argument. Hence, it must be (*),
> not (count).
> Keep in mind that the spec prohibits you from having a special type for
> MPI_STATUSES_IGNORE. I.e., it must be Type(MPI_Status) so that tools can
> know how to intercept it properly.
> Make sense?
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 5:25 AM, N.M. Maclaren <nmm1 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On Mar 12 2014, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> >> That reason is bogus, if the dummy argument is declared to have "count"
> elements the actual argument is required to have at least "count" elements,
> but this need not be exact. The Fortran standard states
> >> "The rank and shape of the actual argument need not agree with the rank
> and shape of the dummy argument, but the number of elements in the dummy
> argument shall not exceed the number of elements in the element sequence of
> the actual argument."
> >> (F2008 184.108.40.206)
> > And that has been true since Fortran II - I have just checked that it
> > was explicitly stated there, too.
> > Regards,
> > Nick Maclaren.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:
> mpiwg-fortran mailing list
> mpiwg-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mpiwg-fortran