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

Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI_SIZEOF: redux
by Jeff Hammond 06 Jun '14

06 Jun '14

The majority of Fortran users in HPC are ignorant of F08 (beyond trivial notions, eg existence) and will still be by the time of MPI-4. I think deprecating this function must be coincident with deprecating the pre-F08 bindings since it is ootebtionskly required for pre-F08 MPI usage. If we are serious about forcing everyone to use F08 (which I think is a terrible idea), then let's at least do it consistently. Jeff Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:15 AM, Bill Long <longb(a)cray.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Would it still be ok to deprecate MPI_SIZEOF in MPI-4 (which is at least ~2 years away)? We don't have to have any plan for removing it. > > I think that would be reasonable. In two years time more vendors will have implemented storage_size. And if it were well known that MPI wants people to migrate to this function, vendors would be motivated to add support sooner. The function itself is pretty trivial to implement as inline code by the compiler. It’s just a matter of vendor priorities. > > Cheers, > Bill > > > Bill Long longb(a)cray.com > Fortran Technical Suport & voice: 651-605-9024 > Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 > Cray Inc./ Cray Plaza, Suite 210/ 380 Jackson St./ St. Paul, MN 55101 > > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-fortran mailing list > mpiwg-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran

1 0

Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI_SIZEOF: redux
by Bill Long 06 Jun '14

06 Jun '14

On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > Would it still be ok to deprecate MPI_SIZEOF in MPI-4 (which is at least ~2 years away)? We don't have to have any plan for removing it. I think that would be reasonable. In two years time more vendors will have implemented storage_size. And if it were well known that MPI wants people to migrate to this function, vendors would be motivated to add support sooner. The function itself is pretty trivial to implement as inline code by the compiler. It’s just a matter of vendor priorities. Cheers, Bill Bill Long longb(a)cray.com Fortran Technical Suport & voice: 651-605-9024 Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 Cray Inc./ Cray Plaza, Suite 210/ 380 Jackson St./ St. Paul, MN 55101

1 0

Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI_SIZEOF: redux
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 06 Jun '14

06 Jun '14

On Jun 5, 2014, at 11:35 PM, Malcolm Cohen <malcolm(a)nag-j.co.jp> wrote: > Anyway, since the so-called F77 binding requires the compiler to have Fortran 90 features, whether Fortran 77 had STORAGE_SIZE is hardly relevant to the question of what to do with MPI_SIZEOF. What being relevant would seem to be whether there is an alternative that is universally available, whether that alternative is actually better to use, and whether it is time to start steering users towards it, by means of deprecating MPI_SIZEOF. Good info; thanks. > But since STORAGE_SIZE is far from universally available, this falls at the very first hurdle. (And alternative ways of computing sizeof in e.g. pure Fortran 90 are, although easy to write, not particularly convenient to use, so those fall at the second hurdle.) Fair enough; but just to clarify -- deprecating is not removing. Deprecating in MPI is a signal "you should try to not use this any more; it may disappear some day." Would it still be ok to deprecate MPI_SIZEOF in MPI-4 (which is at least ~2 years away)? We don't have to have any plan for removing it. I only ask because it seems silly to have a Fortran-only MPI function that was specifically added to compensate for the language's lack of functionality -- but the Fortran has now provided this functionality for quite some time (regardless of the implementation status of various modern Fortran compilers). -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI_SIZEOF: redux
by Malcolm Cohen 05 Jun '14

05 Jun '14

>Lots of user codes are using mpif.h So what has that got to do with deprecating MPI_SIZEOF? Nothing whatsoever. >Maybe you don't have lots of users Astonishing language. Again, nothing to do with deprecating MPI_SIZEOF. And I was not even advocating that! Not to mention that not a single one of those people using the so-called F77 binding are using a mere FORTRAN 77 compiler. Even the INCLUDE "mpi.h" line is a Fortran 90 feature that is not present in FORTRAN 77. >Do the MPI C bindings violate K&R? Yes. > They definitely work with C89, I should hope so too... > which is older than F90 ... since C89 and F90 are (pretty obviously by the names) basically contemporaries. >, so age arguments are not valid here. You just made one! Anyway, since the so-called F77 binding requires the compiler to have Fortran 90 features, whether Fortran 77 had STORAGE_SIZE is hardly relevant to the question of what to do with MPI_SIZEOF. What being relevant would seem to be whether there is an alternative that is universally available, whether that alternative is actually better to use, and whether it is time to start steering users towards it, by means of deprecating MPI_SIZEOF. But since STORAGE_SIZE is far from universally available, this falls at the very first hurdle. (And alternative ways of computing sizeof in e.g. pure Fortran 90 are, although easy to write, not particularly convenient to use, so those fall at the second hurdle.) Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.

1 0

Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI_SIZEOF: redux
by Jeff Hammond 05 Jun '14

05 Jun '14

Lots of user codes are using mpif.h, regardless of their Fortran dialect. Google for it some time and then multiply by a factor to account for Fortran users' lack of use of version control. Maybe you don't have lots of users or customers to deal with, but some of the rest of us do, and deprecating mpif.h and "use mpi" is not going to fly with them. Do the MPI C bindings violate K&R? They definitely work with C89, which is older than F90, so age arguments are not valid here. I'd love it if mpi had C99 and C11 bindings, but it doesn't. Jeff Sent from my iPhone On Jun 5, 2014, at 8:54 PM, "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm(a)nag-j.co.jp> wrote: >> Is this intrinsic in F90? Are we deprecating F77 and F90 bindings? Else we need this. > > (a) Fortran 77 was superceded as a standard 25 years ago. Do you have bindings to K&R (pre-ANSI) C? > > (b) The MPI bindings do not even come close to adhering to the Fortran 77 standard. > > (c) No, this intrinsic was new in Fortran 2008. OTOH, it is possible to calculate "sizeof" in Fortran 90 without much effort (STORAGE_SIZE is merely a convenience function). > > But I agree it is rather early to be deprecating MPI_SIZEOF just because of STORAGE_SIZE, since quite a few compilers don't have it yet. > > Cheers, > -- > ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo. > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-fortran mailing list > mpiwg-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran

1 0

Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI_SIZEOF: redux
by Malcolm Cohen 05 Jun '14

05 Jun '14

>Is this intrinsic in F90? Are we deprecating F77 and F90 bindings? Else we need >this. (a) Fortran 77 was superceded as a standard 25 years ago. Do you have bindings to K&R (pre-ANSI) C? (b) The MPI bindings do not even come close to adhering to the Fortran 77 standard. (c) No, this intrinsic was new in Fortran 2008. OTOH, it is possible to calculate "sizeof" in Fortran 90 without much effort (STORAGE_SIZE is merely a convenience function). But I agree it is rather early to be deprecating MPI_SIZEOF just because of STORAGE_SIZE, since quite a few compilers don't have it yet. Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.

1 0

Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI_SIZEOF: redux
by Jeff Hammond 05 Jun '14

05 Jun '14

Is this intrinsic in F90? Are we deprecating F77 and F90 bindings? Else we need this. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 5, 2014, at 7:47 PM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > > SHORT VERSION: Given the Fortran intrinsic storage_size(), should we deprecate MPI_SIZEOF? > > MORE DETAIL: > > MPI_SIZEOF has been around since MPI-2.0 (i.e., 1996). I don't know how long storage_size() has been around in Fortran, but I can see that it's not in the default gfortran that is in RHEL6 (v4.4.7) -- it looks like it appeared in the gfortran v4.6 series. > > Is it time to deprecate MPI_SIZEOF? We don't have to delete it any time soon, but we can indicate to Fortran MPI developers that they should be using storage_size(). > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-fortran mailing list > mpiwg-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran

1 0

MPI_SIZEOF: redux
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 05 Jun '14

05 Jun '14

SHORT VERSION: Given the Fortran intrinsic storage_size(), should we deprecate MPI_SIZEOF? MORE DETAIL: MPI_SIZEOF has been around since MPI-2.0 (i.e., 1996). I don't know how long storage_size() has been around in Fortran, but I can see that it's not in the default gfortran that is in RHEL6 (v4.4.7) -- it looks like it appeared in the gfortran v4.6 series. Is it time to deprecate MPI_SIZEOF? We don't have to delete it any time soon, but we can indicate to Fortran MPI developers that they should be using storage_size(). -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Several Fortran errata tickets passed
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 05 Jun '14

05 Jun '14

The following Fortran-related tickets were passed this week at the MPI Forum meeting: 393: Fortran module CONTAINS - Advice to implementors 403: Error in description of size-specific types 415: Errata: mpi_f08 MPI_Status must use INTEGER fields 424: Incorrect Fortran type for flag in IMPROBE I'll start committing text for these tickets to the official MPI-3.1 directory once I get a few more reviews of the PDF I sent (that incorporated the gigantic BIND(C) errata). Hint. ***Hint*** Here's the mail where I requested the reviews: http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mpiwg-fortran/2014/05/1495.php The following Fortran-related tickets were NOT passed this week: 427: Fortran cross-reference update (ticket-0) This ticket needs a bunch more work; parts of it may re-surface for the Japan Forum meeting. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI-3.0 Fortran errata latex integration: Reviews requested
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 28 May '14

28 May '14

Thank you! Fixed. On May 27, 2014, at 7:51 AM, Hubert Ritzdorf <Hubert.Ritzdorf(a)emea.nec.com> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > I have reviewed it and found 1 missing change: > > oldwin must be of TYPE (MPI_Win) in Functions MPI_WIN_DUP_FN and MPI_WIN_NULL_COPY_FN > (Page 730, Line 43; Page 731, Line 3) > > Best regards > > Hubert > ________________________________________ > From: mpiwg-fortran [mpiwg-fortran-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) [jsquyres(a)cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 8:08 PM > To: MPI-WG Fortran working group > Subject: Re: [MPIWG Fortran] MPI-3.0 Fortran errata latex integration: Reviews requested > > Has anyone had a chance to review this text yet, perchance? > > On May 14, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > >> I have integrated all the MPI-3.0 Fortran-related errata as of this morning into the MPI-3.1 tree latex. It is not committed in the SVN MPI-3.1 tree because I'd like to get reviews first. >> >> Per Forum direction, I did *not* use the latex change macros. Instead, we're relying on diffs to review the changes. >> >> Once I get 2-3 reviews to ensure that I have applied the errata properly, I'll commit all of it to the official MPI-3.1 SVN tree. >> >> ----- >> >> Here's how I've made the changes available for review: >> >> 0. All the files listed below are available here: >> >> http://www.open-mpi.org/~jsquyres/mpi-forum/ >> >> 1. A PDF of the entire standard is there; all Fortran-related errata have been applied. You should proof this document. To know exactly what to proof in this PDF, however, see the follow documents... >> >> 2. I also put my copy of errata-30.pdf there, including BRIGHT RED annotations indicating which errata items I incorporated into the PDF from #1. >> >> 3. I also posted a tarball of a git tree where I did my work (NOTE: because this git tree includes the entire latex source, it is behind a trivial password. Email me to get it). There are 36 commits; each commit is the application of an individual errata item. You can use normal git commands to view the diffs. For example: >> >> tar xf mpi-3.1-tree-with-fortran-errata-applied-git.tar.bz2 >> cd mpi-3.1 >> git log >> # ...see all my individual commits... >> git show c126721 >> # ...see the trivial addition of Type(MPI_Message) into the annex... >> >> 4. Or, if you don't like/know git, the individual patch files (numbered in order) are also available. For example: >> >> See a list of all the individual patches at >> http://www.open-mpi.org/~jsquyres/mpi-forum/individual-patches/ >> >> See an individual patch: >> wget http://www.open-mpi.org/~jsquyres/mpi-forum/individual-patches/0033-Add-TYP… >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpiwg-fortran mailing list >> mpiwg-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-fortran mailing list > mpiwg-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran > > > Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/qREHYrD4RTjGX2PQPOmvUmGqEHcKtgpy8ZM81Cw5Nx3o… to report this email as spam. > _______________________________________________ > mpiwg-fortran mailing list > mpiwg-fortran(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0