[Mpi3-tools] [MPI3 Fortran] MPI function symbol naming convention for tools
schulzm at llnl.gov
Mon Jun 27 09:24:26 CDT 2011
I agree with Jeff and Craig - having a TelCon next week
would be helpful. What about Wednesday 7/6 at 8am PDT,
11am EDT, 5pm MSZ, since this would also give people
from Europe a chance to dial-in. Would this work for
everyone/most of you? Once we have a time, I'll also
send this to the group of tools people we had on the
other email, in case someone wanted to join us.
On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:42 AM, Rasmussen, Craig wrote:
> I finally have had a chance to read through all of the responses.
> Hopefully I can clarify a few things without muddying the waters
> If Martin is correct and no tools support the "use mpi" option, then
> things are pretty simple.
> 1. mpih.f option: For the immediate future this works as it always
> has. I was only suggesting to deprecate it. But on reconsideration,
> I think this is the wrong thing to do. We are trying to deprecate
> mpih.f itself so the tools using mpih.f can continue using the current
> naming convention as long as mpih.f stays around. Fortran users could
> write an MPI_Send routine and it would work with the PMPI interface as
> before (at least as I understand how this works).
> 2. use mpi or use mpi_f08 option: We would mandate that these
> interfaces supply the names mpi_send_f, mpi_send_f_nostatus,
> mpi_send_desc, and mpi_send_desc_nostatus. The problem comes when a
> Fortran user want to use the PMPI interface. I need to understand
> this more and write some tests and examples we can all look at.
> So I suggest we schedule a conference call sometime next week (after July 5).
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Hubert Ritzdorf
> <Hubert.Ritzdorf at emea.nec.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mpi3-fortran-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi3-fortran-
>>> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Bill Long
>>> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 11:33 AM
>>> To: Martin Schulz
>>> Cc: MPI3 Tools; MPI-3 Fortran working group
>>> Subject: Re: [MPI3 Fortran] MPI function symbol naming convention for tools
>>> On 6/24/11 11:54 AM, Martin Schulz wrote:
>>>> This is probably my lack of knowledge in Fortran compilers, but
>>>> is this all even possible with regular compilers: I would assume
>>>> that you can use an MPI 3.0 implementation with Craig's proposal
>>>> (case A) with an older F77 or F90 compiler, right? If so, one would
>>>> use "use mpi" or "mpif.h", i.e., case A.1. Can you do the name
>>>> mapping from mpi_send to mpi_send_f - I thought this was a new
>>>> feature from F08?
>>> If you still have an old f77 compiler on you system (from decades ago),
>>> it will not be adequate. If you have a current version of a Fortran
>>> compiler available, you are in much better shape. The meaning of
>>> "Fortran" changes over time, and the compilers progress accordingly,
>>> with some time delay.
>>> The name mapping of a call to MPI_send into a call to mpi_send_f is
>>> accomplished with generic interfaces. These were part of Fortran 90 (20
>>> year old technology now) - F08 is not required for this. Other details
>>> of the interfaces do require more recent standards, however.
>> Craig's proposal would require at least Fortran 2003. Otherwise, the compiler may still generate MPI_SEND_F, mpi_send_f, mpi_send_f_ or
>> mpi3-fortran mailing list
>> mpi3-fortran at lists.mpi-forum.org
Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm
CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
More information about the mpiwg-tools