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.