On Jun 27, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Rasmussen, Craig wrote:

I finally have had a chance to read through all of the responses. Hopefully I can clarify a few things without muddying the waters further.

If Martin is correct and no tools support the "use mpi" option, then things are pretty simple.

1. mpih.f option: For the immediate future this works as it always has. I was only suggesting to deprecate it. But on reconsideration, I think this is the wrong thing to do. We are trying to deprecate mpih.f itself so the tools using mpih.f can continue using the current naming convention as long as mpih.f stays around. Fortran users could write an MPI_Send routine and it would work with the PMPI interface as before (at least as I understand how this works).

I don't think we can deprecate mpif.h -- Rolf outlined the reasons why in one of our Chicago Forum meetings (some organizations outlaw the use of *any* "deprecated" interface). Rolf's text from the last meeting had strongly worded language advising people not to use mpif.h, but stopped short of deprecating it.

2. use mpi or use mpi_f08 option: We would mandate that these interfaces supply the names mpi_send_f, mpi_send_f_nostatus, mpi_send_desc, and mpi_send_desc_nostatus. The problem comes when a Fortran user want to use the PMPI interface. I need to understand this more and write some tests and examples we can all look at.

So I suggest we schedule a conference call sometime next week (after July 5).

That would be good. I think that at least the following should attend (others are welcome, of course): - Craig - Jeff - Rolf - Martin - Hubert I'll post a doodle for scheduling shortly. Note that 4 July is a holiday in the US; many (including me) also take the 5th as vacation to make it a 4-day weekend. -- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/