August 2020 - mpiwg-fortran - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [MPIWG Fortran] [Mpiwg-large-counts] Explicit F08 bindings for MPI_Op_create and MPI_Register_datarep
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 06 Aug '20

06 Aug '20

Doesn't seem like there's a better way to do it (i.e., other than adding a suffix to differentiate the two functions). It would probably be a good idea to have additional text about these two F08 procedures, because it affects both users and implementors. On Aug 5, 2020, at 9:55 AM, Bangalore, Purushotham via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear Members of Fortran WG: Hubert pointed out that we have to provide MPI_Op_create_l and MPI_Register_datarep_l functions in the F08 bindings since generic function overload is not possible for these two functions (the only difference in the two versions of these functions is the argument of type procedure and these two procedure arguments are not distinguishable, more details from Hubert at: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/137#issuecomment-648725841) The question for the Fortran WG is: Is there a better solution than adding the _l functions for these two cases? If not, are you all OK with making an exception for these two cases and adding _l functions? Thanks, Puri _______________________________________________ mpiwg-large-counts mailing list mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com<mailto:[email protected]>

1 0

Fwd: Explicit F08 bindings for MPI_Op_create and MPI_Register_datarep
by Rolf Rabenseifner 05 Aug '20

05 Aug '20

Puri asked me to forward this to the Fortran WG: _____________ Dear Members of Fortran WG: Hubert pointed out that we have to provide MPI_Op_create_l and MPI_Register_datarep_l functions in the F08 bindings since generic function overload is not possible for these two functions (the only difference in the two versions of these functions is the argument of type procedure and these two procedure arguments are not distinguishable, more details from Hubert at: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/137#issuecomment-648725841) The question for the Fortran WG is: Is there a better solution than adding the _l functions for these two cases? If not, are you all OK with making an exception for these two cases and adding _l functions? Thanks, Puri ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Purushotham V. Bangalore" <puri(a)uab.edu> To: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rolf.rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 5:07:33 PM Subject: Fw: Explicit F08 bindings for MPI_Op_create and MPI_Register_datarep Hi Rolf, I sent this message earlier, however it looks like it got rejected. I have subscribed for the Fortran WG mailing list, so not sure what happened. In any case, could you please forward this to the Fortran WG mailing list. Thanks, Puri ________________________________ From: Bangalore, Purushotham Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 8:55 AM To: mpiwg-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Cc: mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Subject: Explicit F08 bindings for MPI_Op_create and MPI_Register_datarep Dear Members of Fortran WG: Hubert pointed out that we have to provide MPI_Op_create_l and MPI_Register_datarep_l functions in the F08 bindings since generic function overload is not possible for these two functions (the only difference in the two versions of these functions is the argument of type procedure and these two procedure arguments are not distinguishable, more details from Hubert at: https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/137#issuecomment-648725841) The question for the Fortran WG is: Is there a better solution than adding the _l functions for these two cases? If not, are you all OK with making an exception for these two cases and adding _l functions? Thanks, Puri -- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de . High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 . University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 . Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner . Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) .

1 0

Re: [MPIWG Fortran] [Mpiwg-large-counts] Explicit F08 bindings for MPI_Op_create and MPI_Register_datarep
by Jeff Hammond 05 Aug '20

05 Aug '20

I defer to Hubert but everything I've read from the experts suggests that we need to add the _c functions. Given the usage frequency of user-defined reductions, this is a minor inconvenience. Jeff On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:05 AM Bangalore, Purushotham via mpiwg-large-counts <mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: > Dear Members of Fortran WG: > > Hubert pointed out that we have to provide MPI_Op_create_l and > MPI_Register_datarep_l functions in the F08 bindings since generic function > overload is not possible for these two functions (the only difference in > the two versions of these functions is the argument of type procedure and > these two procedure arguments are not distinguishable, more details from > Hubert at: > https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/137#issuecomment-648725841) > > > The question for the Fortran WG is: Is there a better solution than adding > the _l functions for these two cases? If not, are you all OK with making an > exception for these two cases and adding _l functions? > > Thanks, > Puri > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-large-counts mailing list > mpiwg-large-counts(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts > -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0