Yes, we need to add text in Section 2.6.2, as Hubert also noted. Thanks, Puri ________________________________ From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 8:53 AM To: MPI BigCount Working Group <[email protected]> Cc: MPI Fortran WG <[email protected]>; Bangalore, Purushotham <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Mpiwg-large-counts] Explicit F08 bindings for MPI_Op_create and MPI_Register_datarep 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 <[email protected]<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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-large-counts -- Jeff Squyres [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>