March 2013 - devel - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpich-devel] binding a new MPI type with fortran
by Jeff Hammond 29 Mar '13

29 Mar '13

> So we went the other way around and changed the type of MPI_Pattern from > void* to integer and now fortran interfaces are being generated correctly. > > > You are aware, I hope, that (the default) Integers can be 32 bits or 64 bits > with 64-bit compilers? As far as I am aware, the Fortran standard does not > prescribe that default Kind Integers be the same size as pointers. I don't > know what the MPI standard says or assumes on this topic. There's an easy solution to that: http://mpi-forum.org/docs/mpi-3.0/mpi30-report.pdf :-) Many MPI routines take unadulterated INTEGER arguments but I know of no implementation that does safe down-casting to the underlying C implementation, which inevitably uses C int arguments whenever INTEGER is prescribe, using 64-bit integers with the Fortran interface is very dangerous. Jeff -- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond

1 0

Re: [mpich-devel] binding a new MPI type with fortran
by Larry Baker 29 Mar '13

29 Mar '13

Tatiana, On 29 Mar 2013, at 1:11 PM, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich wrote: > So we went the other way around and changed the type of MPI_Pattern from void* to integer and now fortran interfaces are being generated correctly. You are aware, I hope, that (the default) Integers can be 32 bits or 64 bits with 64-bit compilers? As far as I am aware, the Fortran standard does not prescribe that default Kind Integers be the same size as pointers. I don't know what the MPI standard says or assumes on this topic. Larry Baker US Geological Survey 650-329-5608 baker(a)usgs.gov

1 0

Re: [mpich-devel] binding a new MPI type with fortran
by Dave Goodell 29 Mar '13

29 Mar '13

The "@FOO@" snippets in a file named "BAR.in" are replaced by "configure" (by "config.status", technically) when it is run. The replacement string is taken from a shell environment variable in the configure script by the same name. Valid substitution values are designated by "AC_SUBST" macro invocations in "configure.ac". There are a lot of moving parts here which would take a lot of time to explain in detail. You will probably help yourself out by learning a bit about the autotools: http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/automake.html http://www.flameeyes.eu/autotools-mythbuster/ Grep will also help you answer many of these questions. -Dave On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:11 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich <tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks again for your help Dave. > > So we went the other way around and changed the type of MPI_Pattern from void* to integer and now fortran interfaces are being generated correctly. However, now the question is how to register the new type MPI_Pattern so that we could use it in fortran programs. This also doesn't seem to be trivial... > > In buildface there are this kind of code sections: > > # Datatypes > # These are determined and set at configure time > foreach $key (COMPLEX, DOUBLE_COMPLEX, LOGICAL, REAL, DOUBLE_PRECISION, INTEGER, '2INTEGER', '2DOUBLE_PRECISION', '2REAL', CHARACTER) { > print MPIFFD " INTEGER MPI_$key\n"; > print MPIFFD " PARAMETER (MPI_$key=\@MPI_$key\@)\n"; > } > > this looks like where I should start digging but apparently, simply adding PATTERN to the key set doesn't work: > > Included at src/binding/f90/mpi_constants.f90:6: > > PARAMETER (MPI_PATTERN=@MPI_PATTERN@) > 1 > Error: Expected expression at (1) in PARAMETER statement > > Also, could someone please explain what does this notion - @MPI_COMPLEX@ - in mpi.h.in mean > > /* Fortran types */ > #define MPI_COMPLEX ((MPI_Datatype)@MPI_COMPLEX@) > > > regards, > Tatiana > > > 2013/3/28 Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov> > You almost certainly will also need some modifications in "src/binding/f77/buildiface". Whenever I need to modify this script I have to stare at it for a while before I'm sure where the modifications need to go. > > I don't think we have any existing types which map to pointers under the hood. So there isn't a good example for you to use here. The "MPI_Fint *" changes in particular do not seem correct to me in general. They *might* work in a pinch on a platform with where INTEGER and (void*) are the same size. They might also work on little endian platforms like x86/x86_64, but it will be purely by luck if they do. > > You may be better writing your own Fortran bindings by hand in the short term. > > Bill may have something to add on this subject, since he's the primary maintainer for these scripts. > > -Dave > > On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:04 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich <tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for reply. > > > > Yes, unfortunately we need fortran interfaces because most of the > > applications that we use for testing are written in fortran. > > Will it be enough if I just add a conversion rule to %parmc2f in > > ./src/binding/f90/buildface? Something like: > > > > 'MPI_Pattern' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', > > 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', > > > > And for f77 it will be: > > > > 'MPI_Pattern' => 'MPI_Fint *' > > 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'MPI_Fint *' > > > > > >> Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. > > > > Duly noted. > > > > Tatiana > > > > 2013/3/28 Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov>: > >> On Mar 28, 2013, at 2:16 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich <tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> We are implementing some fault tolerance related functionality in > >>> MPICH-3.0.2. We define a new MPI type in > >>> ~/mpich-3.0.2/src/include/mpi.h.in as: > >>> > >>> typedef void* MPI_Pattern; > >>> > >>> then in the same file we define: > >>> > >>> int MPI_Pattern_declare(char* name, MPI_Pattern* handler); > >>> > >>> However, when I run autogen.sh and fortran binding script executes it > >>> gives out: > >>> > >>> Pattern_declare: No parm type for MPI_Pattern* (MPI_Pattern*) > >>> Use of uninitialized value $fparm in pattern match (m//) at > >>> ./buildiface line 1289, <FD> line 1710. > >> > >> Do you want Fortran interfaces at this time or would you be just as happy to have C-only bindings right now? The former will require hacking on one or more of the "buildiface" scripts in the "src/binding/LANGUAGE" directories. The latter can be accomplished by moving your prototypes and types near the end of mpi.h.in, near the prototypes for "MPIX_Mutex_unlock" and "PMPIX_Mutex_unlock". > >> > >> Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. > >> > >> -Dave > >> > >

1 0

Re: [mpich-devel] binding a new MPI type with fortran
by Tatiana V. Martsinkevich 29 Mar '13

29 Mar '13

Done. Tatiana 2013/3/29 Rajeev Thakur <thakur(a)mcs.anl.gov> > Another reminder that you should call it MPIX_Pattern instead of > MPI_Pattern. > > Rajeev > > On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:11 PM, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Thanks again for your help Dave. > > > > So we went the other way around and changed the type of MPI_Pattern from > void* to integer and now fortran interfaces are being generated correctly. > However, now the question is how to register the new type MPI_Pattern so > that we could use it in fortran programs. This also doesn't seem to be > trivial... > > > > In buildface there are this kind of code sections: > > > > # Datatypes > > # These are determined and set at configure time > > foreach $key (COMPLEX, DOUBLE_COMPLEX, LOGICAL, REAL, > DOUBLE_PRECISION, INTEGER, '2INTEGER', '2DOUBLE_PRECISION', '2REAL', > CHARACTER) { > > print MPIFFD " INTEGER MPI_$key\n"; > > print MPIFFD " PARAMETER (MPI_$key=\@MPI_$key\@)\n"; > > } > > > > this looks like where I should start digging but apparently, simply > adding PATTERN to the key set doesn't work: > > > > Included at src/binding/f90/mpi_constants.f90:6: > > > > PARAMETER (MPI_PATTERN=@MPI_PATTERN@) > > 1 > > Error: Expected expression at (1) in PARAMETER statement > > > > Also, could someone please explain what does this notion - @MPI_COMPLEX@- in > mpi.h.in mean > > > > /* Fortran types */ > > #define MPI_COMPLEX ((MPI_Datatype)@MPI_COMPLEX@) > > > > > > regards, > > Tatiana > > > > > > 2013/3/28 Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov> > > You almost certainly will also need some modifications in > "src/binding/f77/buildiface". Whenever I need to modify this script I have > to stare at it for a while before I'm sure where the modifications need to > go. > > > > I don't think we have any existing types which map to pointers under the > hood. So there isn't a good example for you to use here. The "MPI_Fint *" > changes in particular do not seem correct to me in general. They *might* > work in a pinch on a platform with where INTEGER and (void*) are the same > size. They might also work on little endian platforms like x86/x86_64, but > it will be purely by luck if they do. > > > > You may be better writing your own Fortran bindings by hand in the short > term. > > > > Bill may have something to add on this subject, since he's the primary > maintainer for these scripts. > > > > -Dave > > > > On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:04 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich < > tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for reply. > > > > > > Yes, unfortunately we need fortran interfaces because most of the > > > applications that we use for testing are written in fortran. > > > Will it be enough if I just add a conversion rule to %parmc2f in > > > ./src/binding/f90/buildface? Something like: > > > > > > 'MPI_Pattern' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', > > > 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', > > > > > > And for f77 it will be: > > > > > > 'MPI_Pattern' => 'MPI_Fint *' > > > 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'MPI_Fint *' > > > > > > > > >> Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI > extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will > help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. > > > > > > Duly noted. > > > > > > Tatiana > > > > > > 2013/3/28 Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov>: > > >> On Mar 28, 2013, at 2:16 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich < > tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> We are implementing some fault tolerance related functionality in > > >>> MPICH-3.0.2. We define a new MPI type in > > >>> ~/mpich-3.0.2/src/include/mpi.h.in as: > > >>> > > >>> typedef void* MPI_Pattern; > > >>> > > >>> then in the same file we define: > > >>> > > >>> int MPI_Pattern_declare(char* name, MPI_Pattern* handler); > > >>> > > >>> However, when I run autogen.sh and fortran binding script executes it > > >>> gives out: > > >>> > > >>> Pattern_declare: No parm type for MPI_Pattern* (MPI_Pattern*) > > >>> Use of uninitialized value $fparm in pattern match (m//) at > > >>> ./buildiface line 1289, <FD> line 1710. > > >> > > >> Do you want Fortran interfaces at this time or would you be just as > happy to have C-only bindings right now? The former will require hacking > on one or more of the "buildiface" scripts in the "src/binding/LANGUAGE" > directories. The latter can be accomplished by moving your prototypes and > types near the end of mpi.h.in, near the prototypes for > "MPIX_Mutex_unlock" and "PMPIX_Mutex_unlock". > > >> > > >> Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI > extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will > help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. > > >> > > >> -Dave > > >> > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [mpich-devel] binding a new MPI type with fortran
by Rajeev Thakur 29 Mar '13

29 Mar '13

Another reminder that you should call it MPIX_Pattern instead of MPI_Pattern. Rajeev On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:11 PM, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks again for your help Dave. > > So we went the other way around and changed the type of MPI_Pattern from void* to integer and now fortran interfaces are being generated correctly. However, now the question is how to register the new type MPI_Pattern so that we could use it in fortran programs. This also doesn't seem to be trivial... > > In buildface there are this kind of code sections: > > # Datatypes > # These are determined and set at configure time > foreach $key (COMPLEX, DOUBLE_COMPLEX, LOGICAL, REAL, DOUBLE_PRECISION, INTEGER, '2INTEGER', '2DOUBLE_PRECISION', '2REAL', CHARACTER) { > print MPIFFD " INTEGER MPI_$key\n"; > print MPIFFD " PARAMETER (MPI_$key=\@MPI_$key\@)\n"; > } > > this looks like where I should start digging but apparently, simply adding PATTERN to the key set doesn't work: > > Included at src/binding/f90/mpi_constants.f90:6: > > PARAMETER (MPI_PATTERN=@MPI_PATTERN@) > 1 > Error: Expected expression at (1) in PARAMETER statement > > Also, could someone please explain what does this notion - @MPI_COMPLEX@ - in mpi.h.in mean > > /* Fortran types */ > #define MPI_COMPLEX ((MPI_Datatype)@MPI_COMPLEX@) > > > regards, > Tatiana > > > 2013/3/28 Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov> > You almost certainly will also need some modifications in "src/binding/f77/buildiface". Whenever I need to modify this script I have to stare at it for a while before I'm sure where the modifications need to go. > > I don't think we have any existing types which map to pointers under the hood. So there isn't a good example for you to use here. The "MPI_Fint *" changes in particular do not seem correct to me in general. They *might* work in a pinch on a platform with where INTEGER and (void*) are the same size. They might also work on little endian platforms like x86/x86_64, but it will be purely by luck if they do. > > You may be better writing your own Fortran bindings by hand in the short term. > > Bill may have something to add on this subject, since he's the primary maintainer for these scripts. > > -Dave > > On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:04 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich <tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for reply. > > > > Yes, unfortunately we need fortran interfaces because most of the > > applications that we use for testing are written in fortran. > > Will it be enough if I just add a conversion rule to %parmc2f in > > ./src/binding/f90/buildface? Something like: > > > > 'MPI_Pattern' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', > > 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', > > > > And for f77 it will be: > > > > 'MPI_Pattern' => 'MPI_Fint *' > > 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'MPI_Fint *' > > > > > >> Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. > > > > Duly noted. > > > > Tatiana > > > > 2013/3/28 Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov>: > >> On Mar 28, 2013, at 2:16 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich <tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> We are implementing some fault tolerance related functionality in > >>> MPICH-3.0.2. We define a new MPI type in > >>> ~/mpich-3.0.2/src/include/mpi.h.in as: > >>> > >>> typedef void* MPI_Pattern; > >>> > >>> then in the same file we define: > >>> > >>> int MPI_Pattern_declare(char* name, MPI_Pattern* handler); > >>> > >>> However, when I run autogen.sh and fortran binding script executes it > >>> gives out: > >>> > >>> Pattern_declare: No parm type for MPI_Pattern* (MPI_Pattern*) > >>> Use of uninitialized value $fparm in pattern match (m//) at > >>> ./buildiface line 1289, <FD> line 1710. > >> > >> Do you want Fortran interfaces at this time or would you be just as happy to have C-only bindings right now? The former will require hacking on one or more of the "buildiface" scripts in the "src/binding/LANGUAGE" directories. The latter can be accomplished by moving your prototypes and types near the end of mpi.h.in, near the prototypes for "MPIX_Mutex_unlock" and "PMPIX_Mutex_unlock". > >> > >> Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. > >> > >> -Dave > >> > >

1 0

Re: [mpich-devel] binding a new MPI type with fortran
by Tatiana V. Martsinkevich 29 Mar '13

29 Mar '13

Hello, Thanks again for your help Dave. So we went the other way around and changed the type of MPI_Pattern from void* to integer and now fortran interfaces are being generated correctly. However, now the question is how to register the new type MPI_Pattern so that we could use it in fortran programs. This also doesn't seem to be trivial... In buildface there are this kind of code sections: # Datatypes # These are determined and set at configure time foreach $key (COMPLEX, DOUBLE_COMPLEX, LOGICAL, REAL, DOUBLE_PRECISION, INTEGER, '2INTEGER', '2DOUBLE_PRECISION', '2REAL', CHARACTER) { print MPIFFD " INTEGER MPI_$key\n"; print MPIFFD " PARAMETER (MPI_$key=\@MPI_$key\@)\n"; } this looks like where I should start digging but apparently, simply adding PATTERN to the key set doesn't work: Included at src/binding/f90/mpi_constants.f90:6: PARAMETER (MPI_PATTERN=@MPI_PATTERN@) 1 Error: Expected expression at (1) in PARAMETER statement Also, could someone please explain what does this notion - @MPI_COMPLEX@ - in mpi.h.in mean /* Fortran types */ #define MPI_COMPLEX ((MPI_Datatype)@MPI_COMPLEX@) regards, Tatiana 2013/3/28 Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov> > You almost certainly will also need some modifications in > "src/binding/f77/buildiface". Whenever I need to modify this script I have > to stare at it for a while before I'm sure where the modifications need to > go. > > I don't think we have any existing types which map to pointers under the > hood. So there isn't a good example for you to use here. The "MPI_Fint *" > changes in particular do not seem correct to me in general. They *might* > work in a pinch on a platform with where INTEGER and (void*) are the same > size. They might also work on little endian platforms like x86/x86_64, but > it will be purely by luck if they do. > > You may be better writing your own Fortran bindings by hand in the short > term. > > Bill may have something to add on this subject, since he's the primary > maintainer for these scripts. > > -Dave > > On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:04 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich < > tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for reply. > > > > Yes, unfortunately we need fortran interfaces because most of the > > applications that we use for testing are written in fortran. > > Will it be enough if I just add a conversion rule to %parmc2f in > > ./src/binding/f90/buildface? Something like: > > > > 'MPI_Pattern' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', > > 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', > > > > And for f77 it will be: > > > > 'MPI_Pattern' => 'MPI_Fint *' > > 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'MPI_Fint *' > > > > > >> Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI > extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will > help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. > > > > Duly noted. > > > > Tatiana > > > > 2013/3/28 Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov>: > >> On Mar 28, 2013, at 2:16 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich < > tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> We are implementing some fault tolerance related functionality in > >>> MPICH-3.0.2. We define a new MPI type in > >>> ~/mpich-3.0.2/src/include/mpi.h.in as: > >>> > >>> typedef void* MPI_Pattern; > >>> > >>> then in the same file we define: > >>> > >>> int MPI_Pattern_declare(char* name, MPI_Pattern* handler); > >>> > >>> However, when I run autogen.sh and fortran binding script executes it > >>> gives out: > >>> > >>> Pattern_declare: No parm type for MPI_Pattern* (MPI_Pattern*) > >>> Use of uninitialized value $fparm in pattern match (m//) at > >>> ./buildiface line 1289, <FD> line 1710. > >> > >> Do you want Fortran interfaces at this time or would you be just as > happy to have C-only bindings right now? The former will require hacking > on one or more of the "buildiface" scripts in the "src/binding/LANGUAGE" > directories. The latter can be accomplished by moving your prototypes and > types near the end of mpi.h.in, near the prototypes for > "MPIX_Mutex_unlock" and "PMPIX_Mutex_unlock". > >> > >> Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI > extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will > help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. > >> > >> -Dave > >> > >

1 0

Re: [mpich-devel] binding a new MPI type with fortran
by Dave Goodell 28 Mar '13

28 Mar '13

You almost certainly will also need some modifications in "src/binding/f77/buildiface". Whenever I need to modify this script I have to stare at it for a while before I'm sure where the modifications need to go. I don't think we have any existing types which map to pointers under the hood. So there isn't a good example for you to use here. The "MPI_Fint *" changes in particular do not seem correct to me in general. They *might* work in a pinch on a platform with where INTEGER and (void*) are the same size. They might also work on little endian platforms like x86/x86_64, but it will be purely by luck if they do. You may be better writing your own Fortran bindings by hand in the short term. Bill may have something to add on this subject, since he's the primary maintainer for these scripts. -Dave On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:04 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich <tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for reply. > > Yes, unfortunately we need fortran interfaces because most of the > applications that we use for testing are written in fortran. > Will it be enough if I just add a conversion rule to %parmc2f in > ./src/binding/f90/buildface? Something like: > > 'MPI_Pattern' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', > 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', > > And for f77 it will be: > > 'MPI_Pattern' => 'MPI_Fint *' > 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'MPI_Fint *' > > >> Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. > > Duly noted. > > Tatiana > > 2013/3/28 Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov>: >> On Mar 28, 2013, at 2:16 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich <tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> We are implementing some fault tolerance related functionality in >>> MPICH-3.0.2. We define a new MPI type in >>> ~/mpich-3.0.2/src/include/mpi.h.in as: >>> >>> typedef void* MPI_Pattern; >>> >>> then in the same file we define: >>> >>> int MPI_Pattern_declare(char* name, MPI_Pattern* handler); >>> >>> However, when I run autogen.sh and fortran binding script executes it >>> gives out: >>> >>> Pattern_declare: No parm type for MPI_Pattern* (MPI_Pattern*) >>> Use of uninitialized value $fparm in pattern match (m//) at >>> ./buildiface line 1289, <FD> line 1710. >> >> Do you want Fortran interfaces at this time or would you be just as happy to have C-only bindings right now? The former will require hacking on one or more of the "buildiface" scripts in the "src/binding/LANGUAGE" directories. The latter can be accomplished by moving your prototypes and types near the end of mpi.h.in, near the prototypes for "MPIX_Mutex_unlock" and "PMPIX_Mutex_unlock". >> >> Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. >> >> -Dave >>

1 0

Re: [mpich-devel] binding a new MPI type with fortran
by Tatiana V. Martsinkevich 28 Mar '13

28 Mar '13

Thanks for reply. Yes, unfortunately we need fortran interfaces because most of the applications that we use for testing are written in fortran. Will it be enough if I just add a conversion rule to %parmc2f in ./src/binding/f90/buildface? Something like: 'MPI_Pattern' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'INTEGER(KIND=MPI_ADDRESS_KIND)', And for f77 it will be: 'MPI_Pattern' => 'MPI_Fint *' 'MPI_Pattern*' => 'MPI_Fint *' > Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. Duly noted. Tatiana 2013/3/28 Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov>: > On Mar 28, 2013, at 2:16 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich <tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> We are implementing some fault tolerance related functionality in >> MPICH-3.0.2. We define a new MPI type in >> ~/mpich-3.0.2/src/include/mpi.h.in as: >> >> typedef void* MPI_Pattern; >> >> then in the same file we define: >> >> int MPI_Pattern_declare(char* name, MPI_Pattern* handler); >> >> However, when I run autogen.sh and fortran binding script executes it >> gives out: >> >> Pattern_declare: No parm type for MPI_Pattern* (MPI_Pattern*) >> Use of uninitialized value $fparm in pattern match (m//) at >> ./buildiface line 1289, <FD> line 1710. > > Do you want Fortran interfaces at this time or would you be just as happy to have C-only bindings right now? The former will require hacking on one or more of the "buildiface" scripts in the "src/binding/LANGUAGE" directories. The latter can be accomplished by moving your prototypes and types near the end of mpi.h.in, near the prototypes for "MPIX_Mutex_unlock" and "PMPIX_Mutex_unlock". > > Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. > > -Dave >

1 0

Re: [mpich-devel] binding a new MPI type with fortran
by Dave Goodell 28 Mar '13

28 Mar '13

On Mar 28, 2013, at 2:16 PM CDT, Tatiana V. Martsinkevich <tanya.manekineko(a)gmail.com> wrote: > We are implementing some fault tolerance related functionality in > MPICH-3.0.2. We define a new MPI type in > ~/mpich-3.0.2/src/include/mpi.h.in as: > > typedef void* MPI_Pattern; > > then in the same file we define: > > int MPI_Pattern_declare(char* name, MPI_Pattern* handler); > > However, when I run autogen.sh and fortran binding script executes it > gives out: > > Pattern_declare: No parm type for MPI_Pattern* (MPI_Pattern*) > Use of uninitialized value $fparm in pattern match (m//) at > ./buildiface line 1289, <FD> line 1710. Do you want Fortran interfaces at this time or would you be just as happy to have C-only bindings right now? The former will require hacking on one or more of the "buildiface" scripts in the "src/binding/LANGUAGE" directories. The latter can be accomplished by moving your prototypes and types near the end of mpi.h.in, near the prototypes for "MPIX_Mutex_unlock" and "PMPIX_Mutex_unlock". Also, as a side note, please use "MPIX_" for nonstandard MPI extensions. It makes nonstandard interfaces very obvious to users and will help prevent potential issues with standardization in the future. -Dave

1 0

binding a new MPI type with fortran
by Tatiana V. Martsinkevich 28 Mar '13

28 Mar '13

Hello, We are implementing some fault tolerance related functionality in MPICH-3.0.2. We define a new MPI type in ~/mpich-3.0.2/src/include/mpi.h.in as: typedef void* MPI_Pattern; then in the same file we define: int MPI_Pattern_declare(char* name, MPI_Pattern* handler); However, when I run autogen.sh and fortran binding script executes it gives out: Pattern_declare: No parm type for MPI_Pattern* (MPI_Pattern*) Use of uninitialized value $fparm in pattern match (m//) at ./buildiface line 1289, <FD> line 1710. As far as I understand it doesn't know what would be a corresponding fortran type for MPI_Pattern (?) so it can't create a fortran interface of the function. I cannot figure out how to resolve this. Any help would be very much appreciated. with best regards, Tatiana

1 0