Dear Mr. Squyres,
a) When looking in your mpi_sizeof_mpifh.f90 test program I found a little
thing: You may (but need not) change the name of the integer variable size
to e.g. isize , because size is just an intrinsic function in
Fortran (you may see it already, if you have an editor with
Fortran-highlighting).
Although your type declaration overrides the intrinsic function, a renaming
would make the coding unambiguous.
b) My idea was, that OPENMPI should provide always an declaration (interface)
for each MPI-routine
(and that's what the MPI-3.0 Standard document (Sept.21, 2012) prescribes
(p. 599+601+603)),
independent whether you have already a test program in your suite for an
MPI-routine or not.
Because: If all the interfaces are present, you a priory will avoid
"2-step" User messages:
first the User complains about a missing MPI-routine,
and when the MPI-routine is made available, possibly later about a bug in that
MPI-routine.
So bugs in MPI-routines will be detected and removed
faster in the course of the OPENMPI development. Good for all.
Greetings
Michael Rachner
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: users [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Jeff Squyres
(jsquyres)
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. November 2014 16:48
An: Open MPI User's List
Betreff: Re: [OMPI users] OPENMPI-1.8.3: missing fortran bindings for MPI_SIZEOF
Meh. I forgot to attach the test. :-)
Here it is.
On Nov 5, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2014, at 9:59 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> In my sharedmemtest.f90 coding just sent to you,
>> I have added a call of MPI_SIZEOF (at present it is deactivated, because of
>> the missing Ftn-binding in OPENMPI-1.8.3).
>
> FWIW, I attached one of the tests I put in our test suite for SIZEOF issues
> after the last bug was found. I have that same test replicated essentially
> three times:
>
> - once for mpif.h
> - once for "use mpi"
> - ones for "use mpi_f08"
>
>> I suggest, that you may activate the 2 respective statements in the
>> coding , and use yourself the program for testing whether MPI_SIZEOF works
>> now in the upcoming 1.8.4-version.
>> For me, the installation of a tarball version is not so easy to do as
>> for you, and the problem with the missing Ftn-bindings is not limited to a
>> special machine.
>
> Right; it was a larger problem.
>
>> Can you tell me, from which OPENMPI-version on the bug will be removed?
>
> 1.8.4 will contain the fix.
>
>> To generalize the problem with the Ftn-bindings:
>> I think OPENMPI-development should go the whole hog, and check,
>> whether for all MPI-routines the Ftn-bindings exist.
>> This not so much a complicated task, but a somewhat time-consuming task.
>> But otherwise, over a long time more or less angry Users will write emails
>> on missing FTN-bindings and grumble on "that buggy OPENMPI".
>> And you will have to write the answers on and on... .
>> This will finally take more time for developers and users then doing that
>> work now once-for-all.
>
> We do have a bunch of fortran tests, but I admit that our coverage is
> not complete. SIZEOF was not tested at all, for example, until
> recently. :-(
>
> SIZEOF is also a bit of a special case in the MPI API because it *must* be
> polymorphic (I don't think any other MPI API is) -- even for mpif.h.
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> [email protected]
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> [email protected]
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
> Link to this post:
> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2014/11/25689.php
--
Jeff Squyres
[email protected]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
