Thanks, Jeff!
On Monday 01 June 2009 04:53:19 pm Jeff Squyres wrote: > Per the MPI_Flogical issue -- I think Rainer just exposed some old > ugliness. We've apparently had MPI_Flogical defined in > ompi_config.h.in for a long, long time -- we used it in some places > and used ompi_fortran_logical_t in other places. > > Even though I *may* be responsible for this particular bit of ugliness > way back in the past :-), I think the #define for MPI_Flogical should > be removed if for no other reason than 6-12 months from now when > someone else re-discovers it, they'll have to go lookup to see if it's > a real MPI type -- which it's not. Even though it's longer, we should > use ompi_fortran_logical_t everywhere. > > My $0.02. > > On Jun 1, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Brian W. Barrett wrote: > > Well, this may just be another sign that the push of the DDT to OPAL > > is a > > bad idea. That's been my opinion from the start, so I'm biased. > > But OPAL > > was intended to be single process systems portability, not MPI crud. > > > > Brian > > > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Rainer Keller wrote: > > > Hmm, OK, I see. > > > However, I do see potentially a problem with work getting ddt on > > > > the OPAL > > > > > layer when we do have a fortran compiler with different alignment > > > > requirements > > > > > for the same-sized basic types... > > > > > > As far as I understand the OPAL layer to abstract away from > > > > underlying system > > > > > portability, libc-quirks, and compiler information. > > > > > > But I am perfectly fine with reverting this! > > > Let's discuss, maybe phone? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rainer > > > > > > On Monday 01 June 2009 10:38:51 am Jeff Squyres wrote: > > >> Hmm. I'm not sure that I like this commit. > > >> > > >> George, Brian, and I specifically kept Fortran out of (the non- > > >> generated code in) opal because the MPI layer is the *only* layer > > > > that > > > > >> uses Fortran. There was one or two minor abstraction breaks (you > > >> cited opal/util/arch.c), but now we have Fortran all throughout > > > > Opal. > > > > >> Hmmm... :-\ > > >> > > >> Is MPI_Flogical a real type? I don't see it defined in the MPI-2.2 > > >> latex sources, but I could be missing it. I *thought* we used > > >> ompi_fortran_logical_t internally because there was no officially > > >> sanctioned MPI_<foo> type for it...? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rainer Keller, PhD Tel: +1 (865) 241-6293 Oak Ridge National Lab Fax: +1 (865) 241-4811 PO Box 2008 MS 6164 Email: kel...@ornl.gov Oak Ridge, TN 37831-2008 AIM/Skype: rusraink
