Yep, this is 'zactly what I was contemplating today. Chris from Pathscale is checking into what their symbol length limits are for me and promises to get back to me shortly. So I'm holding off on the symbol length issues until then.
But just to confirm: you said that your pathscale compilers *do* compile 1.7.3 -- including the mpi_f08 module -- with no problems? That would be a little surprising, because those same >=32 character symbol names are in 1.7.3... On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> > wrote: > Can you do me a favor and cd into ompi/mpi/fortran/use-mpi-f08 and try to > manually "make type_create_indexed_block_f08.lo" and see if it also > complains? That's a 32 character name -- let's see if the limit is >=32 or > >=33... > > > Jeff, > > Perhaps you came to the same conclusion already, but just in case: > > I think the simplest approach to this problem is to include a configure check > with the longest name in the interface (without regard to WHAT that length > is). This would be added to the ever-growing list of probes of BIND > behavior. If the compiler can't handle the longest name required, then it is > disqualified from building use-mpi-f08. > > Of course that solution adeptly avoids the "Internal" failure in PathScale > and Open64 compilers, but a configure option to disable the F08 support > addresses that and other misc cases of fortran compilers that just aren't > ready for F08 (or 03 for that matter). > > -Paul > > -- > Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov > Future Technologies Group > Computer and Data Sciences Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900 > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
