I would assume you build MPI correctly with ifort? On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Prentice Bisbal <prent...@ias.edu> wrote:
> > > Jeff Squyres wrote: > > I thought the error was this: > > > > $ mpif90 -o simplex simplexmain579m.for simplexsubs579 > > /usr/local/openmpi-1.2.8/intel-11/x86_64/include/mpif-config.h(88): > > error #6406: Conflicting attributes or multiple declaration of name. > > [MPI_STATUS_SIZE] > > parameter (MPI_STATUS_SIZE=5) > > -----------------^ > > simplexmain579m.for(147): error #6591: An automatic object is invalid in > > a main program. [ISTATUS] > > integer ierr,istatus(MPI_STATUS_SIZE) > > ---------------------^ > > > > which seems to only show the definition in mpif-config.h (which is an > internal OMPI file). I could be mis-interpreting those compiler messages, > though... > > > > Off-the-wall guess here: is the program doing both "use mpi" *and* > "include mpif.h" in the same subroutine...? > > Jeff, > > I suspected that and checked for it earlier. I just double-checked, and > that is not the problem. Out of the two source files, 'include mpif.h' > appears once, and 'use mpi' does not appear at all. I'm beginning to > suspect it is the compiler that is the problem. I'm using ifort 11.1. > It's not the latest version, but it's only about 1 year old. > > $ ifort --version > ifort (IFORT) 11.1 20100203 > Copyright (C) 1985-2010 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. > > -- > Prentice > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Tim Prince wrote: > > > >> On 2/23/2011 8:27 AM, Prentice Bisbal wrote: > >>> Jeff Squyres wrote: > >>>> On Feb 23, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Tim Prince wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> I agree with your logic, but the problem is where the code > containing > >>>>>> the error is coming from - it's comping from a header files that's a > >>>>>> part of Open MPI, which makes me think this is a cmpiler error, > since > >>>>>> I'm sure there are plenty of people using the same header file. in > their > >>>>>> code. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Are you certain that they all find it necessary to re-define > identifiers from that header file, rather than picking parameter names which > don't conflict? > >>>> Without seeing the code, it sounds like Tim might be right: someone is > trying to re-define the MPI_STATUS_SIZE parameter that is being defined by > OMPI's mpif-config.h header file. Regardless of include file/initialization > ordering (i.e., regardless of whether mpif-config.h is the first or Nth > entity to try to set this parameter), user code should never set this > parameter value. > >>>> > >>>> Or any symbol that begins with MPI_, for that matter. The entire > "MPI_" namespace is reserved for MPI. > >>>> > >>> I understand that, and I checked the code to make sure the programmer > >>> didn't do anything stupid like that. > >>> > >>> The entire code is only a few hundred lines in two different files. In > >>> the entire program, there is only 1 include statement: > >>> > >>> include 'mpif.h' > >>> > >>> and MPI_STATUS_SIZE appears only once: > >>> > >>> integer ierr,istatus(MPI_STATUS_SIZE) > >>> > >>> I have limited knowledge of Fortran programming, but based on this, I > >>> don't see how MPI_STATUS_SIZE could be getting overwritten. > >>> > >>> > >> Earlier, you showed a preceding PARAMETER declaration setting a new > value for that name, which would be required to make use of it in this > context. Apparently, you intend to support only compilers which violate the > Fortran standard by supporting a separate name space for PARAMETER > identifiers, so that you can violate the MPI standard by using MPI_ > identifiers in a manner which I believe is called shadowing in C. > >> > >> -- > >> Tim Prince > >> _______________________________________________ > >> users mailing list > >> us...@open-mpi.org > >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > -- David Zhang University of California, San Diego
