(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3864) [MPI3 Fortran] MPI non-blocking transfers

Aleksandar Donev donev1
Wed Jan 21 13:12:43 EST 2009


Hi Bill,

> Having the buffer automatically acquire this new attribute is
> necessary if we want to avoid requiring changes to existing codes.
This is raising red flags for me. Existing codes are *buggy*, and trying 
to somehow make them conforming and well-behaved seems doomed to me. 
Even for Fortran ASYNCHRONOUS, the user still has to make sure the 
attribute appears where it needs to. For one thing, the attribute does 
not "carry over" between scoping units, so if the dummy has the 
attribute (magically or explicitly), whether the actual needs it or not 
is a programming question that the compiler cannot answer. Also, I do 
not now whether in F2003 the interface of a procedure has to specify 
ASYNCHRONOUS if the dummy gets it implicitly because it is used in 
async I/O statements inside the routine??? I think we should stay away 
from magic, it will turn black easily...

> > ? ?2) Most people seem to agree that a data attribute is essential,
> > and a purely procedure-based solution will not work.
> >
> > Do you agree with this and, if not, why not?
>
> The question hints at a common confusion. 
Please answer the actual question.

> There are TWO basic problems we are trying to address.
Except that the two are tied together, just as WAIT and ASYNCHRONOUS go 
together (read your answer to question 1).

>?Various solutions to
> this problem have been discussed, most centering on an attribute for
> dummy arguments
If so, your answer to question 2 is yes?

> or coding versions of the MPI routines that accept 
> pass-by-descriptor rather than
> pass-by-address for the buffer argument.
Answer to question 2 is no---something new is proposed. Are you 
proposing something new or do you prefer an ASYNCH_EXTERNAL attribute? 
Or maybe you prefer not to do anything at all (i.e., ignore the issue).

Thanks,
Aleks




More information about the J3 mailing list