RE: [mpi-21] F90 bindings

["Cownie, James H" <james.h.cownie@xxxxxxxxx>]

It may not help since there are few (no ?) compilers available for it,
but a Fortran 2003 binding might make these issues easier. You really
need a Fortran guru...

-- Jim

James Cownie <james.h.cownie@xxxxxxxxx>
SSG/DPD/PAT
Tel: +44 117 9071438



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
> Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
> Sent: 07 December 2007 13:24
> To: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [mpi-21] F90 bindings
> 
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.