On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 02:59:18PM -0500, Patrick Geoffray wrote: > I don't see it that way. First, the implementations of the translation > layers will be done by each MPI implementations.
In which case it's basically the same as doing an ABI. Or did I miss something? Does this somehow save a significant amount of work for anyone? > >Was there a big fight over the Fortran interface? It nails down the > >types because it has to. All the ABI does is make C look like Fortran; > >no internals need change in any implementation. > > You don't change internals, you translate them. Let say you use pointers > in your MPI implementation and the common layer specifies integers. In > your translation layer, you translate pointers into integers by putting > them in a table. You have as much work as your internals are far from > the common interface and, hopefully, it will be a midpoint for everybody. Patrick, if you read what both Jeff and I wrote, I believe it's clear we both understand that part, because we've both mentioned that particular implementation solution. What I was trying to understand was why Jeff thought this was a huge nightmare. -- greg
