From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Fri Jan 23 21:13:54 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id C0EAACA5FED; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:13:54 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CDE3CA5FE6 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:13:54 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:56408) by ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1LQSPZ-0007Gp-MA (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:13:53 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1LQSPZ-0001hF-Rh (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:13:53 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.1); 23 Jan 2009 20:13:53 +0000 Date: 23 Jan 2009 20:13:53 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3912) (j3.2006) [MPI3 Fortran] [MPI3 Fortran] MPI non-blocking transfers Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20090123194450.CE3A4CA5FE6@www2.open-std.org> References: <20090122100652.C31E9CA3434@www2.open-std.org> <4978A8A0.8090407@cray.com> <20090122175730.8BA1BCA3439@www2.open-std.org> <4978C20F.2070207@cray.com> <20090122214202.3AB89CA5FE6@www2.open-std.org> <20090122221841.2ACCACA5FE6@www2.open-std.org> <20090123114641.70EA1CA5FED@www2.open-std.org> <20090123194450.CE3A4CA5FE6@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Jan 23 2009, Bill Long wrote: > >While I agree that we should make the effort to find a solution for MPI >users (Cray probably has the highest representation of them), I would >not go as far as saying that the lack thereof makes Fortran an >"inadequate language". After all, Fortran 2008 has a much better way of >doing parallel programming than MPI. In that sense, it is a "superior >language". That is a matter of opinion, and only time will tell whether you are correct. However, this issue applies to ANY form of asynchronous I/O (transfer if you like), including POSIX asynchronous I/O. I don't know how many are currently important (except for MPI), but there have been hundreds and are likely to be more in the future. Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679