[OMPI users] MPI_REDUCE vs. MPI_IN_PLACE vs. F90 Interfaces

Yet another forgotten issue regarding the f90 large interfaces (note that MPI_IN_PLACE is currently an integer, for a time it was a double complex but that has been fixed). Problem I have now is that my patches which worked with 1.2 don't work

Re: [OMPI users] MPI_REDUCE vs. MPI_IN_PLACE vs. F90 Interfaces

clear there is much room for enhancement in large. Michael -Original Message- From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org [mailto:users-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kluskens Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM To: Open MPI Users Subject: [OMPI users] MPI_REDUCE vs. MPI_IN_PLACE vs. F90 Interf

Re: [OMPI users] MPI_REDUCE vs. MPI_IN_PLACE vs. F90 Interfaces

an get it out the door, and work on fixing "large" properly in v1.2. Any objections? > -Original Message- > From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org > [mailto:users-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kluskens > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM > To: Open MPI

Re: [OMPI users] MPI_REDUCE vs. MPI_IN_PLACE vs. F90 Interfaces

My mistake: MPI_IN_PLACE is a "double complex" so the scripts below need to be fixed to reflect that. I don't know if the latest tarball for tonight contains these or other fixes that I have been looking at today. Michael On May 30, 2006, at 6:18 PM, Michael Kluskens wrote: Found serio

[OMPI users] MPI_REDUCE vs. MPI_IN_PLACE vs. F90 Interfaces

Found serious issue for the f90 interfaces for --with-mpi-f90- size=large Consider call MPI_REDUCE(MPI_IN_PLACE,sumpfi,sumpfmi,MPI_INTEGER,MPI_SUM, 0,allmpi,ier) Error: Generic subroutine 'mpi_reduce' at (1) is not consistent with a specific subroutine interface sumpfi is an integer