On Monday 01 June 2009 04:53:19 pm Jeff Squyres wrote:
> 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...?
Rainer Keller, PhD Tel: +1 (865) 241-6293
Oak Ridge National Lab Fax: +1 (865) 241-4811
PO Box 2008 MS 6164 Email: keller_at_[hidden]
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-2008 AIM/Skype: rusraink