On Aug 14, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> That's incorrect. Fortran statuses should never be passed to C
> interfaces. If you look at testany_f.c, for example, a temporary status
> is created and then passed to the C binding
I think the issue is that there is a mix of both styles. Look at recv_f.c, for example -- in some cases, we pass the Fortran integer array (if the sizes are equal), and in other cases, we use a temp C MPI_Status.
> (although, in this case, it
> would probably be more efficient to pass it directly to
> ompi_request_testany(), but that's not important here).
Probably so. No one has undertaken an effort to have the mpif.h interfaces directly call the back-end OMPI functions (vs. the MPI functions). It might be worthwhile if someone has an intern / student and wants to come up to speed on OMPI internals -- e.g., they could at least remove some of the calls to MPI functions from performance-critical mpif.h functions (e.g., MPI_Send, MPI_Recv, ...etc.).
> The part that is
> important is that outside of the Fortran interfaces themselves, requests
> are always C requests.
George and Eugene came to similar conclusions on https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/3218.
However, there is a downside (as Eugene pointed out): with the C bindings, we usually (always?) end up copying the status once (from the back-end request to the user-specified status). If we go the use-a-C-MPI_Status route in for the mpif.h bindings, then we'll end up copying the status twice (back-end request -> temp C MPI_Status -> fortran INTEGER array).
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/