[mpiwg-tools] Too strict for flags in MPI_T_pvar_get_info?

[Kathryn Mohror]

Hi Junchao, 

Thanks as always for your sharp eyes. I think though in this case that
Nathan is correct. Since we only define a C interface for MPI_T and try to
ignore Fortran altogether, it is okay to use the C convention for true and
false.

Kathryn
_________________________________________________________________
Kathryn Mohror, kathryn at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
Scalability Team @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA,
USA






On 8/14/14, 9:49 AM, "Nathan Hjelm" <hjelmn at mac.com> wrote:

>
>On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Junchao Zhang <jczhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>It is a minor issue. In the Standard, the description for
>   int MPI_T_pvar_get_info(..., int *readonly, int *continuous, int
>*atomic)
>says:
>  Upon return, the argument readonly is set to zero if the variable can
>be written or reset by the user. It is set to
>one if the variable can only be read.
>  (Same thing happens to continuous and atomic.)
>
>
>The description mandates an implementation must return 1 as TRUE, which
>does not follow C's convention. Other parts of MPI use true/false instead
>of 1/0 in description.  Section 2.6.3 make it clear that true means
>non-zero.
>
>
>
>
>
>How does that not follow C¹s convention? C mandates that the evaluation
>of a boolean operator (<, >, !, etc) MUST evaluate to either 0 or 1.
>Returning 0/1 here makes perfect sense.
>
>
>Other parts of MPI probably use true/false because fortran logicals do
>not use 0/1 for false/true.
>
>
>-Nathan Hjelm
>
>