On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure what comment is being discussed.
> I see the following comment:
> ** The fortran integer is dismissed here, since there is no
> ** platform known to me, were fortran and C-integer do not match
> You can tell the intel compiler (and maybe others?) to compile
> fortran with double-sized integers and reals. Are we disregarding
> this? I.e., does this make this portion of the datatype
> heterogeneity detection incorrect?
> no, that's not an issue. The comment is correct: For any Fortran
> we need to have _some_ C-representation as well, otherwise we
> disregard the
> type (tm), see e.g. the old and resolved ticket #1094.
> Doesn't that mean that the comment is misleading? I interpret it as
> saying that a Fortran "default integer" is always the same as a C
> "int". I believe that you are saying that it really means that
> *any* kind of Fortran integer must be the same as one of C's
> integral types, or OpenMPI won't support it at all. Shouldn't the
> comment be clearer?
I believe that you are talking about a different comment:
> * RHC: technically, use of the ompi_ prefix is
> * an abstraction violation. However, this is actually
> * an error in our configure scripts that transcends
> * all the data types and eventually should be fixed.
> * The guilty part is f77_check.m4. Fixing it right
> * now is beyond a reasonable scope - this comment is
> * placed here to explain the abstraction break and
> * indicate that it will eventually be fixed
I don't know whether anyone is using either of these comments to