On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what comment is being discussed.
Jeff said:
I see the following comment:
** The fortran integer is dismissed here, since there is no
** platform known to me, were fortran and C-integer do not match
You can tell the intel compiler (and maybe others?) to compile
fortran with double-sized integers and reals. Are we disregarding
this? I.e., does this make this portion of the datatype
heterogeneity detection incorrect?
Rainer said:
no, that's not an issue. The comment is correct: For any Fortran
integer*kind
we need to have _some_ C-representation as well, otherwise we
disregard the
type (tm), see e.g. the old and resolved ticket #1094.
I said:
Doesn't that mean that the comment is misleading? I interpret it as
saying that a Fortran "default integer" is always the same as a C
"int". I believe that you are saying that it really means that
*any* kind of Fortran integer must be the same as one of C's
integral types, or OpenMPI won't support it at all. Shouldn't the
comment be clearer?
I believe that you are talking about a different comment:
* RHC: technically, use of the ompi_ prefix is
* an abstraction violation. However, this is actually
* an error in our configure scripts that transcends
* all the data types and eventually should be fixed.
* The guilty part is f77_check.m4. Fixing it right
* now is beyond a reasonable scope - this comment is
* placed here to explain the abstraction break and
* indicate that it will eventually be fixed
I don't know whether anyone is using either of these comments to
justify anything.
Iain
