> Rationale. The C bindings of MPI_ALLOC_MEM and MPI_FREE_MEM are similar > to the bindings for the malloc and free C library calls: a call to > MPI_Alloc_mem(: : :, &base) should be paired with a call to > MPI_Free_mem(base) (one > less level of indirection). Both arguments are declared to be of same type > void* so as to facilitate type casting. The Fortran binding is consistent > with the C bindings: the Fortran MPI_ALLOC_MEM call returns in baseptr the > TYPE(C_PTR) pointer or the (integer valued) address of the allocated memory. > The base argument of MPI_FREE_MEM is a choice argument, which passes (a > reference > to) the variable > stored at that location. (End of rationale.)
Understood - this makes clear the MPI interface convention for the C side. However, the wording for the Fortran bindings is at best misleading. If full consistency with the C interface were desired, the baseptr argument would need to be declared TYPE(C_PTR), VALUE :: baseptr and then users would be required to call the procedure via CALL MPI_XXX( ..., c_loc(baseptr), ...) With the signatures as currently defined, I stand by my opinion that the internal wrappers need to resolve the * vs ** issue. See Fortran 2008, 15.3.7 para 2, item (5) (semantics of a dummy argument *without* the VALUE attribute). > at first glance, i also thought type should have been char ** instead of char > *, but it is not a typo nor a mistake > Cheers, > Gilles -- Dr. Reinhold Bader Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (http://www.lrz.de) / HPC Systems and Services Tel.: 0049 89 35831 8825 Fax: 8625
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users
