[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[mpi-21] F90 bindings
- To: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [mpi-21] F90 bindings
- From: Jeff Squyres <jsquyres@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:23:57 -0500
- Authentication-results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=jsquyres@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
- Delivered-to: mpifrm-mpi-21-outgoing@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
- Delivered-to: mpifrm-mpi-21@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
- Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=936; t=1197033862; x=1197897862; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsquyres@cisco.com; z=From:=20Jeff=20Squyres=20<jsquyres@cisco.com> |Subject:=20F90=20bindings |Sender:=20; bh=PvnlOv2mqvak/grZH6tleaMZaKvTwrbvGb/EtDJNvfg=; b=vS6Ji9oJm8Fx/cT4TUw8UwVv+jekuypkXSXLc9dvKJw82TY3UDCPlJ4vOkGEkxFWun9UxOnd q9wxk0Kp1Gdjgsh2r7+0wrtPVPKBRIjO39tVnw8D1jRFEhzOMMKnrVto;
- Reply-to: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
The F90 bindings specified in MPI-2 currently require nearly 7 million
interface functions in the Fortran 90 module (!). This large number
of interfaces is required because F90 is a strongly-typed language and
has no analogue of (void*). MPI_SEND, for example, has to be
overloaded with function signatures for every possible type of choice
buffer. Worse, many collectives have *2* choice buffers... the end
result is that nearly 7M interfaces are needed. As result, many MPI
implementations implement only a fraction of the MPI F90 module
interface functions.
Additionally, user-defined F90 types cannot be supported.
This is clearly a [big] bug in the F90 bindings. What does the Forum
want to do about this for MPI-2.1? Perhaps add some clarification
language? Or ...?
Can this issue be added to the discussion list for the bindings
subcommittee?
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems