That reason is bogus, if the dummy argument is declared to have "count" elements the actual argument is required to have at least "count" elements, but this need not be exact. The Fortran standard states "The rank and shape of the actual argument need not agree with the rank and shape of the dummy argument, but the number of elements in the dummy argument shall not exceed the number of elements in the element sequence of the actual argument." (F2008 12.5.1.11) Cheers, -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Date: 平成 26年3月12日 1:21 To: MPI-WG Fortran working group Subject: Re: [MPIWG Fortran] Question about an argument of MPI_Testall The WG chose not to do this, because Rolf and others indicated that it is not uncommon to have a large status of arrays -- i.e., something >=count statuses. If you use array_of_statuses(count), then you can only pass in an array of *exactly* size "count" -- and that doesn't fit what users tend to do for convenience. On Mar 11, 2014, at 12:03 PM, Junchao Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,

P60 of MPI3 reads:

MPI_Testall(count, array_of_requests, flag, array_of_statuses, ierror) INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: count

TYPE(MPI_Request), INTENT(INOUT) :: array_of_requests(count)

LOGICAL, INTENT(OUT) :: flag

TYPE(MPI_Status) :: array_of_statuses(*)

INTEGER, OPTIONAL, INTENT(OUT) :: ierror

Should array_of_statuses be declared as TYPE(MPI_Status) :: array_of_statuses(count)?

Thanks

--Junchao Zhang _______________________________________________ mpiwg-fortran mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran

-- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ mpiwg-fortran mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-fortran -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.