[mpich-discuss] mpifort wrapper compiler?

[Pavan Balaji]

I personally have no problems with whatever changes are needed for Fortran.

I’ll talk to JeffH and BillG.  They’ll tell me a lot about Fortran, which I’ll ignore, followed by a one-line “do this”, which I’ll do.  :-)

  — Pavan

On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:

> Amusingly enough, Bill Gropp was one of the ones who told me that consolidating down to a single "mpifort" would be a Good Idea.
> 
> :-)
> 
> FWIW, Rolf R. and Craig R. also told me this was a good idea -- we did quite a bit of legwork before making this decision.
> 
> My only reason for trying to convince you to do this is because it's helpful to users if they can just always rely on "mpifort".  
> 
> Perhaps there are some special/obscure platforms where it *does* make sense to have a separate "77" compiler, but on those platforms, a) maybe you can/should have a different build of your MPI for that compiler, and/or b) perhaps you can create a separate "mpif77" *just for that platform* (i.e., usually, it's just a sym link to mpifort).
> 
> Just my $0.02.  :-)
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> 
>> I’m a Fortran nobody, so I can’t really say one way or another.  But from my discussion with BillG and some vendors (e.g., Fujitsu), there still seem to be compilers that are special-optimized for F77.  Now, I don’t know why that can’t be done absed on the suffix.  If you can convince Bill that this is indeed no problem, I’m happy to change it, or even deprecate Fortran.  :-)
>> 
>> — Pavan
>> 
>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It’s very unlikely we’ll drop F77 separation.  
>>> 
>>> Just curious -- why?  Fortran compiler vendors themselves are consolidating down to single executable names: ifort, pgifort, gfortran, ... etc.
>>> 
>>> This was one of the main motivations for OMPI: we're reflecting what the underlying compiler is, not adding our own distinctions on top of them.  If the underlying compiler distinguishes between free/fixed form via the .suffix, then we (MPI implementations) shouldn't change that.
>>> 
>>> I guess my question is: why would you use "mpif77" instead of "mpifort"?  Or, put differently, what do you need to compile with mpif77 that would not compile properly with mpifort?
>>> 
>>>> F90 and F08 separation might not be a big issue, but we’ll likely just maintain them as separate symbolic links to mpifort.  For now, we could add a symbolic link from mpifort to mpif90.
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, we already use FC and FCFLAGS for F90+.  But we still use F77 for F77 compilers.
>>> 
>>> Keep in mind that there have not been any "Fortran 77" compilers for over 30 years.
>>> 
>>> The distinction is artificial and arbitrary...
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Jeff Squyres
>>> jsquyres at cisco.com
>>> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> --
>> Pavan Balaji
>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres at cisco.com
> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

--
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji