[O-MPI users] [Beowulf] MPI ABI
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Greg Lindahl lindahl at pathscale.comMon Oct 10 12:16:28 PDT 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] MPI ABI
- Next message: [O-MPI users] [Beowulf] MPI ABI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:43:15PM -0400, Patrick Geoffray wrote: > Furthermore, there is no standard binary interface in Fortran, so you > cannot safely use a library compiled with one compiler and an > application compiled with another. Our InfiniPath MPICH-based libraries have this solved on i386 and AMD64: we have a single MPI library that works with PathScale, g77, PGI, and Intel's Fortran compilers. So there's your existence proof. There were no issues other than the ones I've brought up: name mangling, LOGICAL, command line. > In retrospect, the choice of the MPI forum to not put constraints on the > implementation was a good one. Now that MPI is pervasive, it's > legitimate to care about an ABI, but it would certainly have been a > weight for the adoption of the standard back in the days. I whole-heartedly agree with this -- I hope no one thinks that the notion of an MPI ABI implies that the MPI forum did something wrong. -- greg
- Previous message: [Beowulf] MPI ABI
- Next message: [O-MPI users] [Beowulf] MPI ABI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
