Hello, On Wednesday 03 June 2009 12:58:50 pm Iain Bason wrote: > > no, that's not an issue. The comment is correct: For any Fortran > > integer*kind we need to have _some_ C-representation as well, otherwise we > > disregard the type (tm), see e.g. the old and resolved ticket #1094. > > The representation chosen is set in opal/util/arch.c and is > > conclusive as far as I can tell... > Doesn't that mean that the comment is misleading? I interpret it as > saying that a Fortran "default integer" is always the same as a C > "int". I believe that you are saying that it really means that *any* > kind of Fortran integer must be the same as one of C's integral types, > or OpenMPI won't support it at all. Shouldn't the comment be clearer? Yes, the comment (actually in opal/util/arch.h -- not arch.c) while being correct IMHO, one could clarify it. Here we are talking about Fortran's INTEGER vs. C's int. Now, the comment should say:
** The Fortran INTEGER is dismissed here, since there is no ** platform known to me, were Fortran INTEGER does not match any ** of the C-integral types. With best regards, Rainer -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rainer Keller, PhD Tel: +1 (865) 241-6293 Oak Ridge National Lab Fax: +1 (865) 241-4811 PO Box 2008 MS 6164 Email: kel...@ornl.gov Oak Ridge, TN 37831-2008 AIM/Skype: rusraink
