Nope, no user-defined types or arrays greater than 2 dimensions. On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > On Sep 22, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Brian Harker wrote: > >> when I compile my production code, I get: >> >> fortcom: Error: driver.f90: line 211: There is no matching specific >> subroutine for this generic subroutine call. [MPI_SEND] >> >> Seems odd that it would spit up on MPI_SEND, but has no problem with >> MPI_RECV... What do you guys think? And thanks again for your help >> and patience? > > The F90 MPI bindings have some well-known design flaws (i.e., problems with > the standard itself, not any particular implementation). Many of them > center around the fact that F90 is a strongly-typed language. See this > paper for some details: > > http://www.open-mpi.org/papers/euro-pvmmpi-2005-fortran/ > > Here's the highlights, as they pertain to writing F90 MPI apps: > > - There is no equivalent to C's (void*). This means that the F90 MPI > bindings cannot accept user-defined datatypes. > > - This also means that *every* pre-defined type must have a F90 MPI binding. > There are approximately 15 intrinsic size/type combinations. There are 50 > MPI functions that take one choice buffer (e.g., MPI_SEND, etc.), and 25 > functions that take two choice buffers (e.g., MPI_REDUCE). I'm copying this > math from the paper, and I think we got it slightly wrong (there was a > discussion about it on this list a while ago), but it results in many > *millions* of F90 MPI bindings functions. There's no compiler on the planet > than can handle all of these in a single F90 module. > > Open MPI compensates for this with the following: > > - F90 bindings are not created for any of the 2-choice-buffer functions > - F90 bindings are created for all the 1-choice-buffer functions, but only > for dimensions up to N dimensions (N defaults to 4, IIRC). You can change > the value of N with OMPI's configure script; use the > --with-f90-max-array-dim. The maximum value of N is 7. > > So -- your app failed to compile because you either used a user-defined > datatype or you used an array with a dimension greater than 4. If it was a > greater-dimension issue, you can reconfigure/recompile/reinstall OMPI > (again, sorry) with a larger N value. If it was a user-defined datatype, > you unfortunately have to "include mpif.h" in that > subroutine/function/whatever, sorry (and you lose the type checking). :-( > > Here's some info from OMPI's README: > > ----- > - The Fortran 90 MPI bindings can now be built in one of three sizes > using --with-mpi-f90-size=SIZE (see description below). These sizes > reflect the number of MPI functions included in the "mpi" Fortran 90 > module and therefore which functions will be subject to strict type > checking. All functions not included in the Fortran 90 module can > still be invoked from F90 applications, but will fall back to > Fortran-77 style checking (i.e., little/none). > > - trivial: Only includes F90-specific functions from MPI-2. This > means overloaded versions of MPI_SIZEOF for all the MPI-supported > F90 intrinsic types. > > - small (default): All the functions in "trivial" plus all MPI > functions that take no choice buffers (meaning buffers that are > specified by the user and are of type (void*) in the C bindings -- > generally buffers specified for message passing). Hence, > functions like MPI_COMM_RANK are included, but functions like > MPI_SEND are not. > > - medium: All the functions in "small" plus all MPI functions that > take one choice buffer (e.g., MPI_SEND, MPI_RECV, ...). All > one-choice-buffer functions have overloaded variants for each of > the MPI-supported Fortran intrinsic types up to the number of > dimensions specified by --with-f90-max-array-dim (default value is > 4). > > Increasing the size of the F90 module (in order from trivial, small, > and medium) will generally increase the length of time required to > compile user MPI applications. Specifically, "trivial"- and > "small"-sized F90 modules generally allow user MPI applications to > be compiled fairly quickly but lose type safety for all MPI > functions with choice buffers. "medium"-sized F90 modules generally > take longer to compile user applications but provide greater type > safety for MPI functions. > > Note that MPI functions with two choice buffers (e.g., MPI_GATHER) > are not currently included in Open MPI's F90 interface. Calls to > these functions will automatically fall through to Open MPI's F77 > interface. A "large" size that includes the two choice buffer MPI > functions is possible in future versions of Open MPI. > ----- > > FWIW, we're arguing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussing new Fortran 2003 bindings for > MPI in the MPI-3 Forum right now. We have already addressed the problems > discussed above (F03 now has an equivalent of (void*)), and hope to do a few > more minor things as well. There's also discussion of the possibility of a > Boost.MPI-like Fortran 2003 MPI library that would take advantage of many of > the features of the language, but be a little farther away from the official > MPI bindings (see www.boost-org for details about how their nifty C++ > library works on top of MPI). > > -- > Jeff Squyres > Cisco Systems > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >
-- Cheers, Brian brian.har...@gmail.com "In science, there is only physics; all the rest is stamp-collecting." -Ernest Rutherford
