Yes I have matched all the arguments. I should mention that the code compiles and runs flawlessly using MPICH2-1.0.7 so it's got to be an issue with my specific build of openMPI. I want to get openMPI up and running for performance comparisons.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > What's the source code in question, then? Did you match all the arguments? > > > On Sep 22, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Brian Harker wrote: > >> Nope, no user-defined types or arrays greater than 2 dimensions. >> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 22, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Brian Harker wrote: >>> >>>> when I compile my production code, I get: >>>> >>>> fortcom: Error: driver.f90: line 211: There is no matching specific >>>> subroutine for this generic subroutine call. [MPI_SEND] >>>> >>>> Seems odd that it would spit up on MPI_SEND, but has no problem with >>>> MPI_RECV... What do you guys think? And thanks again for your help >>>> and patience? >>> >>> The F90 MPI bindings have some well-known design flaws (i.e., problems >>> with >>> the standard itself, not any particular implementation). Many of them >>> center around the fact that F90 is a strongly-typed language. See this >>> paper for some details: >>> >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/papers/euro-pvmmpi-2005-fortran/ >>> >>> Here's the highlights, as they pertain to writing F90 MPI apps: >>> >>> - There is no equivalent to C's (void*). This means that the F90 MPI >>> bindings cannot accept user-defined datatypes. >>> >>> - This also means that *every* pre-defined type must have a F90 MPI >>> binding. >>> There are approximately 15 intrinsic size/type combinations. There are >>> 50 >>> MPI functions that take one choice buffer (e.g., MPI_SEND, etc.), and 25 >>> functions that take two choice buffers (e.g., MPI_REDUCE). I'm copying >>> this >>> math from the paper, and I think we got it slightly wrong (there was a >>> discussion about it on this list a while ago), but it results in many >>> *millions* of F90 MPI bindings functions. There's no compiler on the >>> planet >>> than can handle all of these in a single F90 module. >>> >>> Open MPI compensates for this with the following: >>> >>> - F90 bindings are not created for any of the 2-choice-buffer functions >>> - F90 bindings are created for all the 1-choice-buffer functions, but >>> only >>> for dimensions up to N dimensions (N defaults to 4, IIRC). You can >>> change >>> the value of N with OMPI's configure script; use the >>> --with-f90-max-array-dim. The maximum value of N is 7. >>> >>> So -- your app failed to compile because you either used a user-defined >>> datatype or you used an array with a dimension greater than 4. If it was >>> a >>> greater-dimension issue, you can reconfigure/recompile/reinstall OMPI >>> (again, sorry) with a larger N value. If it was a user-defined datatype, >>> you unfortunately have to "include mpif.h" in that >>> subroutine/function/whatever, sorry (and you lose the type checking). >>> :-( >>> >>> Here's some info from OMPI's README: >>> >>> ----- >>> - The Fortran 90 MPI bindings can now be built in one of three sizes >>> using --with-mpi-f90-size=SIZE (see description below). These sizes >>> reflect the number of MPI functions included in the "mpi" Fortran 90 >>> module and therefore which functions will be subject to strict type >>> checking. All functions not included in the Fortran 90 module can >>> still be invoked from F90 applications, but will fall back to >>> Fortran-77 style checking (i.e., little/none). >>> >>> - trivial: Only includes F90-specific functions from MPI-2. This >>> means overloaded versions of MPI_SIZEOF for all the MPI-supported >>> F90 intrinsic types. >>> >>> - small (default): All the functions in "trivial" plus all MPI >>> functions that take no choice buffers (meaning buffers that are >>> specified by the user and are of type (void*) in the C bindings -- >>> generally buffers specified for message passing). Hence, >>> functions like MPI_COMM_RANK are included, but functions like >>> MPI_SEND are not. >>> >>> - medium: All the functions in "small" plus all MPI functions that >>> take one choice buffer (e.g., MPI_SEND, MPI_RECV, ...). All >>> one-choice-buffer functions have overloaded variants for each of >>> the MPI-supported Fortran intrinsic types up to the number of >>> dimensions specified by --with-f90-max-array-dim (default value is >>> 4). >>> >>> Increasing the size of the F90 module (in order from trivial, small, >>> and medium) will generally increase the length of time required to >>> compile user MPI applications. Specifically, "trivial"- and >>> "small"-sized F90 modules generally allow user MPI applications to >>> be compiled fairly quickly but lose type safety for all MPI >>> functions with choice buffers. "medium"-sized F90 modules generally >>> take longer to compile user applications but provide greater type >>> safety for MPI functions. >>> >>> Note that MPI functions with two choice buffers (e.g., MPI_GATHER) >>> are not currently included in Open MPI's F90 interface. Calls to >>> these functions will automatically fall through to Open MPI's F77 >>> interface. A "large" size that includes the two choice buffer MPI >>> functions is possible in future versions of Open MPI. >>> ----- >>> >>> FWIW, we're arguing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussing new Fortran 2003 bindings for >>> MPI in the MPI-3 Forum right now. We have already addressed the problems >>> discussed above (F03 now has an equivalent of (void*)), and hope to do a >>> few >>> more minor things as well. There's also discussion of the possibility of >>> a >>> Boost.MPI-like Fortran 2003 MPI library that would take advantage of many >>> of >>> the features of the language, but be a little farther away from the >>> official >>> MPI bindings (see www.boost-org for details about how their nifty C++ >>> library works on top of MPI). >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Squyres >>> Cisco Systems >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> users mailing list >>> us...@open-mpi.org >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Brian >> brian.har...@gmail.com >> >> >> "In science, there is only physics; all the rest is stamp-collecting." >> -Ernest Rutherford >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> us...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > Cisco Systems > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > -- Cheers, Brian brian.har...@gmail.com "In science, there is only physics; all the rest is stamp-collecting." -Ernest Rutherford
