Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] MPI-3 Fortran feedback
From: Nifty Tom Mitchell (niftyompi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-27 16:40:16


On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:12:24AM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2009, at 11:38 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
>> There is currently a semi-heated debate in comp.lang.fortran
>> concerning co-arrays and the upcoming Fortran 2008. Don't
>> waste your time trying to decipher the thread; however, there
>> appear to be a few knowledgable MPI Fortaners hang-out, lately.
>> Would Craig mind if I relay the above to c.l.f.? Of course,
>> if Craig prefers not to veer into USENET, I can understand
>> his decision.
>
>
>
> The more feedback that we get, the better -- I don't have the cycles to
> read usenet, unfortunately. I don't know if Craig does (but I suspect
> that he does not). If they can reply here, on the blog post, or directly
> on the MPI-3 Fortran working group mailing list (linked to on the blog),
> that would be awesome.

If I recall correctly the OMPI build does not generate a full Fortran
<--> C mapping of all types for all functions. Was the reason that the
resulting library has too many permutations and symbols to test, build and
link to.

While not a co-array related comment is there a way to generate
the necessary bindings on the fly and facilitate stronger type
checking and perhaps open the door for richer optimizations
from the compiler folk.

  http://www.open-mpi.org/papers/euro-pvmmpi-2005-fortran/euro-pvm-mpi-2005-fortran.pdf

Will Fortran 2008 revisit some of these issues in a problematic way?
Or is this such old news that folk just live with it?

Later,
mitch