- discuss - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support?
by Gus Correa 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 9:45 AM Raffenetti, Kenneth J. <raffenet(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > On 1/26/21, 9:10 PM, "Gus Correa via discuss" <discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: > > Is it okay to remove F77 support? > No, NO, NO!!!! NO! > > > Removing the support to Fortran 77 from MPI is a disastrous idea! > Sorry to say, but it is really stupid to suppose that only because > compilers support F90 > that you can remove F77 support from MPI. > A lot of people, academic institutions, and probably industry, > continue to use, > and develop new code in F77. > > What matters is if the CODE is written in Fortran 90 or in Fortran 77, > and whether it uses the Fortran 77 MPI API or the Fortran 90 MPI API, > not whether the compiler supports Fortran 90 (and yes, if not all, do). > > > There is an enormous Fortran 77 code base, written using MPI, and that > is not likely to change for the foreseeable future. > That is true in the Atmospheric/Climate/Ocean sciences, where I work, > > but would guess this is true in other areas of science as well. > Just one example: The MITgcm, which has an huge community of users, > > is the backbone for many research projects, supports many PhD thesis, > is 100% written in Fortran-77 and will not be changed anytime soon, > as there is no financial support to do that. > > Also, this type of inquiry to the MPICH community is way too narrow. > I don't think you should be using emails on a mailing list to base > such a consequential decision. > Argonne should know better which community it supports, which codes > out there use MPI. > > I think there is some misunderstanding of the question here. The MPICH > team is asking if it would be OK to drop support for building MPICH with an > F77 only compiler. MPICH will still support all standard Fortran language > bindings: mpif.h, use mpi, and use mpi_f08. Does the code you speak of not > build with modern Fortran compilers? If so, that is the kind of feedback we > are looking for. > > Thanks, > Ken > > Well, then the question was very poorly formulated. It suggests suppressing the Mpich Fortran-77 API. Hard to gauge the impact of removing support of F77 compiler (ONLY), but it may cause trouble when building complex code, and linking it to MPI (mpich), as some may actually require a compiler that is specific for Fortran-77, or have Makefiles and other utilities that rely on such a compiler. Gus Correa

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support?
by Jeffrey Layton 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

I stand corrected. Please, by all means, do what you like and drop F77 or whatever you want. Jeff <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 3:35 PM Jeff Hammond via discuss <discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: > Everybody wishing to have a serious opinion on ISO Fortran 77 should read > the following: > > > https://stevelionel.com/drfortran/2020/05/16/doctor-fortran-in-military-str… > > Also, Squyres is right about everything, as usual. > > Jeff > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:09 AM Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via discuss < > discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: > >> On Jan 27, 2021, at 9:45 AM, Raffenetti, Kenneth J. via discuss < >> discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: >> > >> > The MPICH team is asking if it would be OK to drop support for building >> MPICH with an F77 only compiler. >> >> MPI -- MPICH, Open MPI, etc. -- has never been able to be built with a >> F77-only compiler because the MPI standard has never adhered to the Fortran >> 77 standard. >> >> Additionally, MPI-3.1 17.1.1 quite clearly states that a conformant >> MPI-3.1 implementation must support either the mpi_f08 module (which >> implies support for much of the Fortran'08 standard) and/or mpif.h + the >> mpi module (which requires elements of the Fortran 90 standard). This >> requirement has been there since MPI-3.0, published in 2012. >> >> Hence, it has not been possible to build any conformant MPI >> implementation with a "F77-only" compiler for nearly a decade. >> >> And let's not forget that Fortran 77 limits symbols -- variables, >> subroutines, and functions -- to 6 characters. Hence, it has *never* been >> possible to build any MPI implementation or application with a Fortran >> 77-only compiler. >> >> Håkon's answer earlier in the thread was also quite correct: "fixed form >> Fortran" is not the same thing as "Fortran 77". Please stop conflating the >> two. >> >> > MPICH will still support all standard Fortran language bindings: >> mpif.h, use mpi, and use mpi_f08. Does the code you speak of not build with >> modern Fortran compilers? If so, that is the kind of feedback we are >> looking for. >> >> That is a good question, much better formed than the original. It's a >> question that the entire MPI Forum would benefit hearing answers to! >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.science(a)gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support?
by Jeff Hammond 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

Everybody wishing to have a serious opinion on ISO Fortran 77 should read the following: https://stevelionel.com/drfortran/2020/05/16/doctor-fortran-in-military-str… Also, Squyres is right about everything, as usual. Jeff On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:09 AM Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via discuss < discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: > On Jan 27, 2021, at 9:45 AM, Raffenetti, Kenneth J. via discuss < > discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: > > > > The MPICH team is asking if it would be OK to drop support for building > MPICH with an F77 only compiler. > > MPI -- MPICH, Open MPI, etc. -- has never been able to be built with a > F77-only compiler because the MPI standard has never adhered to the Fortran > 77 standard. > > Additionally, MPI-3.1 17.1.1 quite clearly states that a conformant > MPI-3.1 implementation must support either the mpi_f08 module (which > implies support for much of the Fortran'08 standard) and/or mpif.h + the > mpi module (which requires elements of the Fortran 90 standard). This > requirement has been there since MPI-3.0, published in 2012. > > Hence, it has not been possible to build any conformant MPI implementation > with a "F77-only" compiler for nearly a decade. > > And let's not forget that Fortran 77 limits symbols -- variables, > subroutines, and functions -- to 6 characters. Hence, it has *never* been > possible to build any MPI implementation or application with a Fortran > 77-only compiler. > > Håkon's answer earlier in the thread was also quite correct: "fixed form > Fortran" is not the same thing as "Fortran 77". Please stop conflating the > two. > > > MPICH will still support all standard Fortran language bindings: mpif.h, > use mpi, and use mpi_f08. Does the code you speak of not build with modern > Fortran compilers? If so, that is the kind of feedback we are looking for. > > That is a good question, much better formed than the original. It's a > question that the entire MPI Forum would benefit hearing answers to! > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support?
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

On Jan 27, 2021, at 9:45 AM, Raffenetti, Kenneth J. via discuss <discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: > > The MPICH team is asking if it would be OK to drop support for building MPICH with an F77 only compiler. MPI -- MPICH, Open MPI, etc. -- has never been able to be built with a F77-only compiler because the MPI standard has never adhered to the Fortran 77 standard. Additionally, MPI-3.1 17.1.1 quite clearly states that a conformant MPI-3.1 implementation must support either the mpi_f08 module (which implies support for much of the Fortran'08 standard) and/or mpif.h + the mpi module (which requires elements of the Fortran 90 standard). This requirement has been there since MPI-3.0, published in 2012. Hence, it has not been possible to build any conformant MPI implementation with a "F77-only" compiler for nearly a decade. And let's not forget that Fortran 77 limits symbols -- variables, subroutines, and functions -- to 6 characters. Hence, it has *never* been possible to build any MPI implementation or application with a Fortran 77-only compiler. Håkon's answer earlier in the thread was also quite correct: "fixed form Fortran" is not the same thing as "Fortran 77". Please stop conflating the two. > MPICH will still support all standard Fortran language bindings: mpif.h, use mpi, and use mpi_f08. Does the code you speak of not build with modern Fortran compilers? If so, that is the kind of feedback we are looking for. That is a good question, much better formed than the original. It's a question that the entire MPI Forum would benefit hearing answers to! -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support?
by Raffenetti, Kenneth J. 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

On 1/26/21, 9:10 PM, "Gus Correa via discuss" <discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: Is it okay to remove F77 support? No, NO, NO!!!! NO! Removing the support to Fortran 77 from MPI is a disastrous idea! Sorry to say, but it is really stupid to suppose that only because compilers support F90 that you can remove F77 support from MPI. A lot of people, academic institutions, and probably industry, continue to use, and develop new code in F77. What matters is if the CODE is written in Fortran 90 or in Fortran 77, and whether it uses the Fortran 77 MPI API or the Fortran 90 MPI API, not whether the compiler supports Fortran 90 (and yes, if not all, do). There is an enormous Fortran 77 code base, written using MPI, and that is not likely to change for the foreseeable future. That is true in the Atmospheric/Climate/Ocean sciences, where I work, but would guess this is true in other areas of science as well. Just one example: The MITgcm, which has an huge community of users, is the backbone for many research projects, supports many PhD thesis, is 100% written in Fortran-77 and will not be changed anytime soon, as there is no financial support to do that. Also, this type of inquiry to the MPICH community is way too narrow. I don't think you should be using emails on a mailing list to base such a consequential decision. Argonne should know better which community it supports, which codes out there use MPI. I think there is some misunderstanding of the question here. The MPICH team is asking if it would be OK to drop support for building MPICH with an F77 only compiler. MPICH will still support all standard Fortran language bindings: mpif.h, use mpi, and use mpi_f08. Does the code you speak of not build with modern Fortran compilers? If so, that is the kind of feedback we are looking for. Thanks, Ken

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Questions about MPICH multi-thread support
by Zhou, Hui 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

Reply inline below – Question 1. In our application there are two modules that run concurrently and rely on MPI (using two different communicators for isolation purposes). During the development time we observed the following behavior: when one of the modules sends a large buffer (say +1GB), the other one encountered a kind of contention problem where its messages were held back through the duration of the large data transfer, even though second module messages were really small. Is this a known behavior? Is there any kind of message fragmentation implemented in MPICH that would allow concurrent message progression? If not, are there any plans to implement such a feature? Yes, this is a known behavior. By default, mpich will impose a global lock to ensure correctness. In the latest 3.4 release, we have an experimental “multi-vci” support that allows operations in different communicators to progress concurrently. You can build that by `--enable-thread-cs=per-vci –with-ch4-max-vcis=8`. `8` is arbitrary max to balance initialization overhead, but you can bump that up to 64. You also need set environment variable `MPIR_CVAR_CH4_NUM_VCIS=8` to enable the multi-vci during runtime. Again, 8 is arbitrary up to the configured maximum. Question 2. We already have used one of the scenarios described in the previous email, where one thread of a process A sends a message to one of multiple threads on a process B, all of which are waiting on the same message triple through non-blocking receives. The expected behaviour would be that only one of the threads from process B would receive the message, but, during our tests we have faced a failure where a segfault would be thrown from inside MPI_Recv function at one of the receiving threads. Is the expected behavior correct? Is there any known issue with this use case that would trigger the described problem? I know this can probably be the application's fault, I just want to check if there is any known issue on the matter. This sounds like a potential bug. Could you file an issue at https://giithub.com/pmodels/mpich/issues? We’ll need more details and ideally a reproducer to effectively debug. -- Hui Zhou

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support?
by Jeffrey Layton 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

I disagree. There is still F77 code around that has not been ported to a more recent standard. I have some of that code myself and need to stay in its present form (no updating). Jeff On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 1:53 PM Håkon Strandenes via discuss < discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: > You must differentiate between Fortran 77 and fixed-form Fortran source > code. > > I doubt there are any true Fortran 77 code around today. > > I am myself maintaining a large codebase written in Fixed Form Fortran. > The code was probably Fortran 77 at some point 30-40 years ago, but not > any more. Yet we still maintain parts in Fixed Form, though. This code > is Fortran 2003 at minimum. > > I do not have the Fortran 2018 standard document around, but at least > Fortran 2008 include fixed-form as an allowed source form (although > marked as deprecated). For those interested, this is chapter 3.3 "Source > form" in ISO/IEC 1539-1:2010. > > F77 can only be fixed form, but that does not make any fixed-form > Fortran program F77. Fixed-form Fortran can be F2008 as well. > > This must be understood correctly for this discussion to be fruitful. > > Best regards, > Håkon > > Den 2021-01-27 04:08, skrev Gus Correa via discuss: > > IS IT OKAY TO REMOVE F77 SUPPORT? > > > > No, NO, NO!!!! NO! > > > > Removing the support to Fortran 77 from MPI is a disastrous idea! > > Sorry to say, but it is really stupid to suppose that only because > > compilers support F90 > > that you can remove F77 support from MPI. > > A lot of people, academic institutions, and probably industry, > > continue to use, > > and develop new code in F77. > > > > What matters is if the CODE is written in Fortran 90 or in Fortran 77, > > and whether it uses the Fortran 77 MPI API or the Fortran 90 MPI API, > > not whether the compiler supports Fortran 90 (and yes, if not all, > > do). > > > > There is an enormous Fortran 77 code base, written using MPI, and that > > is not likely to change for the foreseeable future. > > That is true in the Atmospheric/Climate/Ocean sciences, where I work, > > > > > > but would guess this is true in other areas of science as well. > > Just one example: The MITgcm, which has an huge community of users, > > > > is the backbone for many research projects, supports many PhD thesis, > > is 100% written in Fortran-77 and will not be changed anytime soon, > > as there is no financial support to do that. > > > > Also, this type of inquiry to the MPICH community is way too narrow. > > I don't think you should be using emails on a mailing list to base > > such a consequential decision. > > Argonne should know better which community it supports, which codes > > out there use MPI. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Gus Correa > > Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:12 PM Zhou, Hui via discuss > > <discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: > > > >> Dear MPICH community, > >> > >> Can we assume at this point of time, that every Fortran compiler out > >> there supports Fortran 90 at least? > >> > >> -- > >> Hui Zhou > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support?
by Zhou, Hui 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

Yes, that is a much better subject line. Thanks for your input! -- Hui Zhou From: Ed Hartnett via discuss <discuss(a)mpich.org> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 8:04 AM To: discuss(a)mpich.org <discuss(a)mpich.org> Cc: Ed Hartnett <edwardjameshartnett(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support? A better subject line would be: does MPI still need to support F77-only compilers. I took netcdf-fortran to F90 compiling a good few years ago, and never heard of any complaints and problems. netcdf-fortran is used on a lot of HPC systems. So I think it's OK if you drop support for F77-only compilers. All platforms have a fortran compiler that is at least F90 compatible. Of course, this has no effect of F77 code, which will still compile just fine with an F90 compiler. Ed Hartnett On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:53 AM Håkon Strandenes via discuss <discuss(a)mpich.org<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: You must differentiate between Fortran 77 and fixed-form Fortran source code. I doubt there are any true Fortran 77 code around today. I am myself maintaining a large codebase written in Fixed Form Fortran. The code was probably Fortran 77 at some point 30-40 years ago, but not any more. Yet we still maintain parts in Fixed Form, though. This code is Fortran 2003 at minimum. I do not have the Fortran 2018 standard document around, but at least Fortran 2008 include fixed-form as an allowed source form (although marked as deprecated). For those interested, this is chapter 3.3 "Source form" in ISO/IEC 1539-1:2010. F77 can only be fixed form, but that does not make any fixed-form Fortran program F77. Fixed-form Fortran can be F2008 as well. This must be understood correctly for this discussion to be fruitful. Best regards, Håkon Den 2021-01-27 04:08, skrev Gus Correa via discuss: > IS IT OKAY TO REMOVE F77 SUPPORT? > > No, NO, NO!!!! NO! > > Removing the support to Fortran 77 from MPI is a disastrous idea! > Sorry to say, but it is really stupid to suppose that only because > compilers support F90 > that you can remove F77 support from MPI. > A lot of people, academic institutions, and probably industry, > continue to use, > and develop new code in F77. > > What matters is if the CODE is written in Fortran 90 or in Fortran 77, > and whether it uses the Fortran 77 MPI API or the Fortran 90 MPI API, > not whether the compiler supports Fortran 90 (and yes, if not all, > do). > > There is an enormous Fortran 77 code base, written using MPI, and that > is not likely to change for the foreseeable future. > That is true in the Atmospheric/Climate/Ocean sciences, where I work, > > > but would guess this is true in other areas of science as well. > Just one example: The MITgcm, which has an huge community of users, > > is the backbone for many research projects, supports many PhD thesis, > is 100% written in Fortran-77 and will not be changed anytime soon, > as there is no financial support to do that. > > Also, this type of inquiry to the MPICH community is way too narrow. > I don't think you should be using emails on a mailing list to base > such a consequential decision. > Argonne should know better which community it supports, which codes > out there use MPI. > > Thank you, > > Gus Correa > Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:12 PM Zhou, Hui via discuss > <discuss(a)mpich.org<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Dear MPICH community, >> >> Can we assume at this point of time, that every Fortran compiler out >> there supports Fortran 90 at least? >> >> -- >> Hui Zhou >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org<mailto:[email protected]> >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org<mailto:[email protected]> > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org<mailto:[email protected]> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support?
by Zhou, Hui 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

Thanks! This type of response is the exact the kind of response we are looking for. Okay, to clarify, there is no plan to stop support legacy f77 mpi applications that relies on `mpif.h` to work. We have a large set of test suites in F77 and we will always ensure these tests pass. My question is really about simplifying the MPICH build. Currently we still assume there are Fortran compilers out there that will only compile (somewhat strict) F77 and our configure scripts checks for F77 compiler and F90 compiler separately, and our binding code have measures to ensure we don’t use features that legacy F77 compiler won’t accept. My question is, is there really such compilers out there? And if there is, is it okay for us not to support such compilers? This is a similar question as moving our code base to C99, it is all about making code development easier and in the meantime ensure that we do not impose extra inconvenience for our user to build MPICH. -- Hui Zhou From: Gus Correa via discuss <discuss(a)mpich.org> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 9:09 PM To: MPICH-Discuss <discuss(a)mpich.org> Cc: Gus Correa <gus(a)ldeo.columbia.edu> Subject: Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support? Is it okay to remove F77 support? No, NO, NO!!!! NO! Removing the support to Fortran 77 from MPI is a disastrous idea! Sorry to say, but it is really stupid to suppose that only because compilers support F90 that you can remove F77 support from MPI. A lot of people, academic institutions, and probably industry, continue to use, and develop new code in F77. What matters is if the CODE is written in Fortran 90 or in Fortran 77, and whether it uses the Fortran 77 MPI API or the Fortran 90 MPI API, not whether the compiler supports Fortran 90 (and yes, if not all, do). There is an enormous Fortran 77 code base, written using MPI, and that is not likely to change for the foreseeable future. That is true in the Atmospheric/Climate/Ocean sciences, where I work, but would guess this is true in other areas of science as well. Just one example: The MITgcm, which has an huge community of users, is the backbone for many research projects, supports many PhD thesis, is 100% written in Fortran-77 and will not be changed anytime soon, as there is no financial support to do that. Also, this type of inquiry to the MPICH community is way too narrow. I don't think you should be using emails on a mailing list to base such a consequential decision. Argonne should know better which community it supports, which codes out there use MPI. Thank you, Gus Correa Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:12 PM Zhou, Hui via discuss <discuss(a)mpich.org<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear MPICH community, Can we assume at this point of time, that every Fortran compiler out there supports Fortran 90 at least? -- Hui Zhou _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org<mailto:[email protected]> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Re: [mpich-discuss] Is it okay to remove F77 support?
by Ed Hartnett 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

A better subject line would be: does MPI still need to support F77-only compilers. I took netcdf-fortran to F90 compiling a good few years ago, and never heard of any complaints and problems. netcdf-fortran is used on a lot of HPC systems. So I think it's OK if you drop support for F77-only compilers. All platforms have a fortran compiler that is at least F90 compatible. Of course, this has no effect of F77 code, which will still compile just fine with an F90 compiler. Ed Hartnett On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:53 AM Håkon Strandenes via discuss < discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: > You must differentiate between Fortran 77 and fixed-form Fortran source > code. > > I doubt there are any true Fortran 77 code around today. > > I am myself maintaining a large codebase written in Fixed Form Fortran. > The code was probably Fortran 77 at some point 30-40 years ago, but not > any more. Yet we still maintain parts in Fixed Form, though. This code > is Fortran 2003 at minimum. > > I do not have the Fortran 2018 standard document around, but at least > Fortran 2008 include fixed-form as an allowed source form (although > marked as deprecated). For those interested, this is chapter 3.3 "Source > form" in ISO/IEC 1539-1:2010. > > F77 can only be fixed form, but that does not make any fixed-form > Fortran program F77. Fixed-form Fortran can be F2008 as well. > > This must be understood correctly for this discussion to be fruitful. > > Best regards, > Håkon > > Den 2021-01-27 04:08, skrev Gus Correa via discuss: > > IS IT OKAY TO REMOVE F77 SUPPORT? > > > > No, NO, NO!!!! NO! > > > > Removing the support to Fortran 77 from MPI is a disastrous idea! > > Sorry to say, but it is really stupid to suppose that only because > > compilers support F90 > > that you can remove F77 support from MPI. > > A lot of people, academic institutions, and probably industry, > > continue to use, > > and develop new code in F77. > > > > What matters is if the CODE is written in Fortran 90 or in Fortran 77, > > and whether it uses the Fortran 77 MPI API or the Fortran 90 MPI API, > > not whether the compiler supports Fortran 90 (and yes, if not all, > > do). > > > > There is an enormous Fortran 77 code base, written using MPI, and that > > is not likely to change for the foreseeable future. > > That is true in the Atmospheric/Climate/Ocean sciences, where I work, > > > > > > but would guess this is true in other areas of science as well. > > Just one example: The MITgcm, which has an huge community of users, > > > > is the backbone for many research projects, supports many PhD thesis, > > is 100% written in Fortran-77 and will not be changed anytime soon, > > as there is no financial support to do that. > > > > Also, this type of inquiry to the MPICH community is way too narrow. > > I don't think you should be using emails on a mailing list to base > > such a consequential decision. > > Argonne should know better which community it supports, which codes > > out there use MPI. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Gus Correa > > Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:12 PM Zhou, Hui via discuss > > <discuss(a)mpich.org> wrote: > > > >> Dear MPICH community, > >> > >> Can we assume at this point of time, that every Fortran compiler out > >> there supports Fortran 90 at least? > >> > >> -- > >> Hui Zhou > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > >> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > >> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list discuss(a)mpich.org > To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: > https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0