Re: [mpi-21] F90 bindings

[Hubert Ritzdorf <ritzdorf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I could convince our SX Fortran guys to implement a VOID attribute which 
disables the
type checking for the argument; cf.

       Subroutine MPI_Sendrecv(                                       &
                       sendbuf, sendcount, sendtype, dest,   sendtag, &
                       recvbuf, recvcount, recvtype, source, recvtag, &
                       comm,   status,    ierror)
          use MPI_Constants,only: MPI_STATUS_SIZE
!
          VOID                  :: recvbuf, sendbuf
                   Intent (In)  :: sendbuf
                   Intent (InOut) :: recvbuf
          Integer, Intent (In)  :: sendcount, sendtype, sendtag
          Integer, Intent (In)  :: recvcount, recvtype, recvtag
          Integer, Intent (In)  :: dest, source, comm
          Integer, Intent (Out) :: status (MPI_STATUS_SIZE)
          Integer, Intent (Out) :: ierror
       End Subroutine MPI_Sendrecv

Possibly, other vendors can convince their compiler guys so that this 
may become
a common Fortran 90 extension. This would help also other Fortran
communication libraries even if they don't use a C interface.

Hubert


Cownie, James H wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature