Not good Ö temporary ;)
On Nov 12, 2013, at 19:47 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:42 AM, George Bosilca <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> 2. In the 64 bit case, you'll have a difficult time extracting the MPI status values from the 8-byte INTEGERs in the status array in Fortran (because the first 2 of 3 each really be 2 4-byte integers).
>> My understanding is that in Fortran explicitly types variables will retain their expected size. Thus, instead of declaring
>> INTEGER :: status[MPI_STATUS_SIZE]
>> one should go for
>> INTEGER*4 :: status[MPI_STATUS_SIZE]
>> This should make it work right now.
> You are correct. †Thatís a good workaround.
> That being said, we *could* change this so that MPI_STATUS_SIZE is always 6, and have the C<ó>Fortran status routines just do the Right Thing depending on the size/type of ompi_fortran_integer_t.
>> However, it is a non-standard solution, and we should fix the status handling internally in Open MPI.
>> Looking at the code I think that correctly detecting the type of our ompi_fortran_integer_t during configure (which should be a breeze if the correct flags are passed) should solve all issues here as we are protecting the status conversion between C and Fortran.
> Not quite. †We do already correctly determine ompi_fortran_integer_t as a C "int" or "long long" (that's what I saw yesterday when I tested this myself).
> However, the key here is that MPI_STATUS_SIZE is set to be the size of a ***C*** MPI_Status (but expressed in units of Fortran INTEGER size -- so in the sizeof(int)==sizeof(INTEGER)==4 case, MPI_STATUS_SIZE is 6. †But in the sizeof(int)==4, sizeof(INTEGER)==8 case, MPI_STATUS_SIZE is 3.
Indeed. We can have an Fortran MPI_Status (only in the Fortran interface) that will be 3 ompi_fortran_integer_t, and alter the translation macros to do the right thing (translate from C int to the chosen Fortran int).
Honestly, I think that most users will expect that an MPI compiled with -i8 will have the status as a 3 8 bytes integers and not some other weird combination depending on another layer of the library (compiled in a language lacking the subtlety of -i8 ;)).
> Either way, as you say, it's a nonstandard solution. †So I don't know which way is "more correct". †On the one hand, we've had it this way for *years* (so perhaps there's code out there that uses the George workaround and is working fine). †But OTOH, itís different than what you would have to do in the non-dash-i8 case, and so we should make MPI_STATUS_SIZE be 6 and then Fortran code will work identically (without INTEGER*4) regardless of whether you used -i8 or not.
>> Jim, can you go in the include directory on your Open MPI installation and grep for the definition of ompi_fortran_integer_t please.
>> users mailing list
> Jeff Squyres
> For corporate legal information go to:http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
> users mailing list
users mailing list