Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] opal / fortran / Flogical
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-01 16:53:19


Per the MPI_Flogical issue -- I think Rainer just exposed some old
ugliness. We've apparently had MPI_Flogical defined in
ompi_config.h.in for a long, long time -- we used it in some places
and used ompi_fortran_logical_t in other places.

Even though I *may* be responsible for this particular bit of ugliness
way back in the past :-), I think the #define for MPI_Flogical should
be removed if for no other reason than 6-12 months from now when
someone else re-discovers it, they'll have to go lookup to see if it's
a real MPI type -- which it's not. Even though it's longer, we should
use ompi_fortran_logical_t everywhere.

My $0.02.

On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Brian W. Barrett wrote:

> Well, this may just be another sign that the push of the DDT to OPAL
> is a
> bad idea. That's been my opinion from the start, so I'm biased.
> But OPAL
> was intended to be single process systems portability, not MPI crud.
>
> Brian
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Rainer Keller wrote:
>
> > Hmm, OK, I see.
> > However, I do see potentially a problem with work getting ddt on
> the OPAL
> > layer when we do have a fortran compiler with different alignment
> requirements
> > for the same-sized basic types...
> >
> > As far as I understand the OPAL layer to abstract away from
> underlying system
> > portability, libc-quirks, and compiler information.
> >
> > But I am perfectly fine with reverting this!
> > Let's discuss, maybe phone?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rainer
> >
> >
> > On Monday 01 June 2009 10:38:51 am Jeff Squyres wrote:
> >> Hmm. I'm not sure that I like this commit.
> >>
> >> George, Brian, and I specifically kept Fortran out of (the non-
> >> generated code in) opal because the MPI layer is the *only* layer
> that
> >> uses Fortran. There was one or two minor abstraction breaks (you
> >> cited opal/util/arch.c), but now we have Fortran all throughout
> Opal.
> >> Hmmm... :-\
> >>
> >> Is MPI_Flogical a real type? I don't see it defined in the MPI-2.2
> >> latex sources, but I could be missing it. I *thought* we used
> >> ompi_fortran_logical_t internally because there was no officially
> >> sanctioned MPI_<foo> type for it...?
>

-- 
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems