[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.
Toon Knapen toon.knapen at fft.beMon Oct 10 01:58:24 PDT 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Anybody want to part with a retired Tyan S2466N?
- Next message: [Beowulf] MPI ABI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Coming back to the MPI ABI discussion (which dates back from a long time ago though), just one additional question (to which MPI implementers certainly have an interesting opinion): Why don't we use the fortran interface instead of the C interface. Different C interfaces for MPI are likely incompatible because the type behind the MPI_Group etc. might all be different. Same goes for the named constants. In the fortran interface however the type's are always guaranteed to be int's. Thus AFAICT if my app uses the fortran interface of MPI I can link my app with a dynamic library (say libmpi.so) which I can make point to either e.g. an MPICH implementation or POE. right? toon
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Anybody want to part with a retired Tyan S2466N?
- Next message: [Beowulf] MPI ABI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
