Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

This web mail archive is frozen.

This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.

You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails have been added to it since July of 2016.

Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.

From: Greg Lindahl (lindahl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-25 17:03:06

On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 02:59:18PM -0500, Patrick Geoffray wrote:

> I don't see it that way. First, the implementations of the translation
> layers will be done by each MPI implementations.

In which case it's basically the same as doing an ABI. Or did I miss
something? Does this somehow save a significant amount of work for

> >Was there a big fight over the Fortran interface? It nails down the
> >types because it has to. All the ABI does is make C look like Fortran;
> >no internals need change in any implementation.
> You don't change internals, you translate them. Let say you use pointers
> in your MPI implementation and the common layer specifies integers. In
> your translation layer, you translate pointers into integers by putting
> them in a table. You have as much work as your internals are far from
> the common interface and, hopefully, it will be a midpoint for everybody.

Patrick, if you read what both Jeff and I wrote, I believe it's clear
we both understand that part, because we've both mentioned that
particular implementation solution. What I was trying to understand
was why Jeff thought this was a huge nightmare.

-- greg