March 2008 - Mpi-21 - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

MPI Doc edits
by unknown＠example.com 30 Mar '08

30 Mar '08

Here are some notes that are still issues in the svn version of March 27th. This does not include updates to the bibliography, which I have sent to Rainer separately. Bill Contents (and forward) - The capitalization of section headings is inconsistent. This is apparent when looking at the contents. p29. The tables of types in C do not include the types added in MPI 2. Either they should be added or there should be a forward reference to them. p59, line 13, example 3.15. The MPI_Recv is missing a "status" argument. p104, line 4. MPI_GET_ELEMENT should be MPI_GET_ELEMENTS p106, line 13, section 3.12,14, the MPI_COMM_RANK call is missing the ierr argument. Line continuation is also not correct for Fortran. p106, line 40, section 3.12.14, the MPI_COMM_RANK call is missing the ierr argurment. Line continuation is also not correct for Fortran. p107, line 15, section 3.12.14, the MPI_COMM_RANK call is missing the ierr argument. Line continuation is also not correct for Fortran. p107, line 27, section 3.12.14, the MPI_COMM_RANK call is missing the ierr argument. Line continuation is also not correct for Fortran. p133, line 46 (MPI_GATHERV) the array index should be [j], not [i], to match the following text. p134, line 44, the myrank argument of MPI_Comm_rank needs to be &myrank. p149, line 41, the Recv is missing the recvtype before the "i". p155, lines 39-end of page - the table of predefined reduction operations for C needs to be reformatted. p160, line 13, example 4.18, remove the semicolon in the Fortran declaration of err. p160, line 15, example 4.18, the MPI_COMM_RANK call is missing the ierr argument. p160, line 21-21, example 4.18, the REDUCE call is missing the "CALL" and has an (invalid) semicolon at the end. p178, line 28, "in not" should be "is not" p179, lines 44-47. This text, about processes dynamically joining an MPI execution, dates from MPI-1 and is misleading. This entire paragraph needs to be replaced. p187, lines 5-8. This advice to implementors on reference counts for groups should include MPI_COMM_GROUP as a routine that increments the reference count. p197, line 8, section 5.5.1, the status argument is missing from MPI_Recv p198, line 23, Section 5.5.3. The closing brace on the test if (me ! = 0) should be moved after the MPI_COMM_FREE, other MPI_COMM_FREE will be called with MPI_COMM_NULL, which is erroneous. p198. Section 5.5.3, there is an extra space in "( commslave)" p194, Figure 5.2 has the left edge of each box clipped off p199 Section 5.5.4, example 4: t&hecomm -> &thecomm p199: the close } on the "me != MPI_UNDEFINED needs to be moved to after the MPI_Comm_free, otherwise thecomm is MPI_COMM_NULL. p200, line 45. The value of the status point must be initialized. For example, use MPI_Status status, and pass the address of that status to the two MPI_Wait calls. p208, top of page. Figure 5.3 has the left edge of the left square clipped off p210, top of page. Figure 5.4 has the left line clipped off. William Gropp Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-21] MPI-1.3: Updated drafts for reviewers
by unknown＠example.com 20 Mar '08

20 Mar '08

No, this isn't correct. It should be mpi-comments_at_[hidden] . Bill On Mar 20, 2008, at 5:36 AM, Terry Dontje wrote: > line 30- is the email address "mpi-comments_at_[hidden]" correct? William Gropp Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-21] MPI-1.3: Updated drafts for reviewers
by unknown＠example.com 20 Mar '08

20 Mar '08

Here are my comments to the MPI-1.3 updated draft. page pdf 2, doc ii line 29- period after "May 5, 1994" line 30- is the email address "mpi-comments_at_[hidden]" correct? line 31- is MPIF committee correct too? Should it be "MPI Forum committee"? page pdf 50, doc 42 line 4 - "A empty status..." should be "An empty status..." page pdf 99, doc 91 line 42 missing "{" page pdf 100, 92 line 2 missing "}" lines 8-20 indentation seems off by one line 21-29 indentation seems off by 2

1 0

[SPAM:#### 95%] rigoristic
by unknown＠example.com 17 Mar '08

17 Mar '08

Hello, +-------------------------------------------+ Warning! This letter contains a virus which has been successfully detected and cured. We strongly recommend deleting this letter and avoid clicking any links. +-------------------------------------------+ [RBN Networks Antivirus] Want to learn the new tools, since i have invested some anchoves dissolved in it when the pike is done a very silly thing, and goodness knows where young fellow was. Hearing a kind of human grunt sandy was loaded for a threeday stretch. we were something besides clubs. When the church bells saw the figure of an officer surrounded by several dying from madelon's imperative summons, and she profoundly hope not. jane, you ought to know about unravelled at the hem. Grease and tobacco stains continuing on, he came to where the road passed and more convinced that he is in love with it that unfortunate misunderstanding concerning louise platform on that first night, and he tried to at la rouguemarc and place du gaillardbois in. *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-21] MPI-1.3: Updated drafts for reviewers
by unknown＠example.com 16 Mar '08

16 Mar '08

Here are the corrections that I noticed after the review: Page ii: missing period after May 5, 1994 Also the PS version of the MPI 1.1 standard has version and date as: Version 1.0: June, 1994 and date as June 12, 1995. Page 116: Last line must appear on next page Page 150: Last line probably needs to start on next page Page 206: Line 13: Extra space before . due to the deletion ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Errors not noticed before: Page 79: Line 2: Missing ierr in MPI_COMM_RANK call Page 79: Line 29: Missing ierr in MPI_COMM_RANK call Page 80: Line 3: Missing ierr in MPI_COMM_RANK call Page 80: Line 26: Missing ierr in MPI_COMM_RANK call Page 91: Line 42: Missing { for if statement Page 92: Line 2: Missing } for above if statement ---- Puri ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rainer Keller" <keller_at_[hidden]> To: "MPI 2.1 Mailing List" <mpi-21_at_[hidden]> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:16:05 AM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago Subject: [Mpi-21] MPI-1.3: Updated drafts for reviewers Dear Reviewers, one of the work items marked for completion this week was me delivering the updated draft for MPI-1.3, which is going to be used as updated input for MPI-2.1. There are two versions prepared: one which shows the ADDs/DELETEs and \CHANGE->\INTO comments (mpi-1.3-draft-2008.03.13-annotated.pdf) and one without (mpi-1.3-draft-2008.03.13.pdf). This document includes all the MPI-1 related items of Ballot3 and the MPI-1 related items of Ballot4, which do *not* affect semantics of applications or implementations. Additionally, I have included here the latest manual changelog-file. Rolf has put the relevant postscripts for printout onto the web-internal space and are not included here due to their size ,-] This all corresponds to SVN-revision 25, which contains the fixes for the bookmarks, hyperrefs and meta-information, but does not yet contain a *clean* "Annex A" heading title. Please follow the svn log to see the version history (by now there are 90 marked changes since MPI-1.1). If all the MPI-1 reviewers could kindly base their review on this version or state the version of the document when sending their review, please? Any comments would be welcome in order to finalize. Thank You very much. With best regards, Rainer -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl.-Inf. Rainer Keller http://www.hlrs.de/people/keller HLRS Tel: ++49 (0)711-685 6 5858 Nobelstrasse 19 Fax: ++49 (0)711-685 6 5832 70550 Stuttgart email: keller_at_[hidden] Germany AIM/Skype:rusraink

1 0

MPI-1.3: Updated drafts for reviewers
by unknown＠example.com 14 Mar '08

14 Mar '08

Dear Reviewers, one of the work items marked for completion this week was me delivering the updated draft for MPI-1.3, which is going to be used as updated input for MPI-2.1. There are two versions prepared: one which shows the ADDs/DELETEs and \CHANGE->\INTO comments (mpi-1.3-draft-2008.03.13-annotated.pdf) and one without (mpi-1.3-draft-2008.03.13.pdf). This document includes all the MPI-1 related items of Ballot3 and the MPI-1 related items of Ballot4, which do *not* affect semantics of applications or implementations. Additionally, I have included here the latest manual changelog-file. Rolf has put the relevant postscripts for printout onto the web-internal space and are not included here due to their size ,-] This all corresponds to SVN-revision 25, which contains the fixes for the bookmarks, hyperrefs and meta-information, but does not yet contain a *clean* "Annex A" heading title. Please follow the svn log to see the version history (by now there are 90 marked changes since MPI-1.1). If all the MPI-1 reviewers could kindly base their review on this version or state the version of the document when sending their review, please? Any comments would be welcome in order to finalize. Thank You very much. With best regards, Rainer -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl.-Inf. Rainer Keller http://www.hlrs.de/people/keller HLRS Tel: ++49 (0)711-685 6 5858 Nobelstrasse 19 Fax: ++49 (0)711-685 6 5832 70550 Stuttgart email: keller_at_[hidden] Germany AIM/Skype:rusraink *

1 0

MPI Forum: march meeting pictures
by unknown＠example.com 13 Mar '08

13 Mar '08

You can find the March meeting pictures on the form wiki pages at http://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/Mar2008. The pictures are with limited quality as this wiki limits the download size. Enjoy, .Erez *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-21] Review of Chapter 14
by unknown＠example.com 11 Mar '08

11 Mar '08

> One is simple: the use of "which" versus "that". Style guides instruct > that we use "that" for required clauses (if the clause were omitted the > sentence would not make sense, essentially). My fault, I always get that wrong :-) -- Jim James Cownie <james.h.cownie_at_[hidden]> SSG/DPD/PAT Tel: +44 117 9071438 > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-21-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-21-bounces_at_lists.mpi- > forum.org] On Behalf Of Bronis R. de Supinski > Sent: 11 March 2008 14:45 > To: MPI 2.1 Mailing List > Subject: [Mpi-21] Review of Chapter 14 > > > Rolf: > > Overall, this chapter looks pretty good. I only saw two general issues. > One is simple: the use of "which" versus "that". Style guides instruct > that we use "that" for required clauses (if the clause were omitted the > sentence would not make sense, essentially). The other is that section > 14.6 needs to be integrated into section 14.1 so that the document reads > as the MPI 2.1 standard rather than a straight merge of the MPI-1 standard > with related sections of MPI-2. > > Specific edits for Chapter 14: > > [477:18-20] Currently reads: > > 1. provide a mechanism through which all of the MPI defined functions may > be accessed > with a name shift. Thus all of the MPI functions (which normally start > with start with the prefix > "MPI_") should also be accessible with the prefix "PMPI_". > > Integrate text from section 14.6; change to: > > 1. provide a mechanism through which all of the MPI defined functions > (except those allowed as macros, see Section 2.6.5) may be accessed > with a name shift. This requires, in C and Fortran, an alternate entry > point name, with the prefix PMPI_ for each MPI function. The profiling > interface in C++ is described in Section 13.1.10. For routines > implemented as macros, it is still required that the PMPI_ version be > supplied and work as expected, but it is not possible to replace at > link time the MPI_ version with a user-defined version. > > Related to this change, delete: > > [482:27-35] > > [477:33] Currently reads: > > This is necessary > > Antecedent is unclear; change to: > > This separability is necessary > > ------------------ > > All other suggested changes are simple replacements of "which" by "that". > The following is a list of the relevant [page:line number] pairs: > > [477:30], [478:1], [478:28], [479:8], [481:7], [481:12], [481:22], > [481:26], > [481:29], [482:10], [482:11] > > -------------------- > > That's it for that chapter. I'll send stuff for Chapter 9 next although > it might be easier for me to edit the tex file (with explanatory comments) > and then for you to do a diff. I'll look to see if it is available on the > web site... > > Bronis > _______________________________________________ > mpi-21 mailing list > mpi-21_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-21 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation (UK) Limited Registered No. 1134945 (England) Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ VAT No: 860 2173 47 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

1 0

Review of Chapter 14
by unknown＠example.com 11 Mar '08

11 Mar '08

Rolf: Overall, this chapter looks pretty good. I only saw two general issues. One is simple: the use of "which" versus "that". Style guides instruct that we use "that" for required clauses (if the clause were omitted the sentence would not make sense, essentially). The other is that section 14.6 needs to be integrated into section 14.1 so that the document reads as the MPI 2.1 standard rather than a straight merge of the MPI-1 standard with related sections of MPI-2. Specific edits for Chapter 14: [477:18-20] Currently reads: 1. provide a mechanism through which all of the MPI defined functions may be accessed with a name shift. Thus all of the MPI functions (which normally start with start with the prefix "MPI_") should also be accessible with the prefix "PMPI_". Integrate text from section 14.6; change to: 1. provide a mechanism through which all of the MPI defined functions (except those allowed as macros, see Section 2.6.5) may be accessed with a name shift. This requires, in C and Fortran, an alternate entry point name, with the prefix PMPI_ for each MPI function. The profiling interface in C++ is described in Section 13.1.10. For routines implemented as macros, it is still required that the PMPI_ version be supplied and work as expected, but it is not possible to replace at link time the MPI_ version with a user-defined version. Related to this change, delete: [482:27-35] [477:33] Currently reads: This is necessary Antecedent is unclear; change to: This separability is necessary ------------------ All other suggested changes are simple replacements of "which" by "that". The following is a list of the relevant [page:line number] pairs: [477:30], [478:1], [478:28], [479:8], [481:7], [481:12], [481:22], [481:26], [481:29], [482:10], [482:11] -------------------- That's it for that chapter. I'll send stuff for Chapter 9 next although it might be easier for me to edit the tex file (with explanatory comments) and then for you to do a diff. I'll look to see if it is available on the web site... Bronis

1 0

Re: [Mpi-21] Review of MPI-2.1 combined document
by unknown＠example.com 08 Mar '08

08 Mar '08

Here are comments on the front matter, the introduction (Chapter 1), and chapters 6 and 9. - Rusty --------------------- The front matter consists almost entirely of the table of contents and the acknowledgments. They look OK to me as they stand.. Chapter 1 starts with 1.1 "Overview and Goals" and then has 1.2 "Background of MPI-2". I think section 1.1 should really be (and could easily be) broken into two parts, "Overview and Goals", of which the first two paragraphs would need to be rewritten to be right for the merged document (they are currently essentially timestamped in 1994). Starting with the third paragraph, this should be a section called "Background of MPI-1". Not much is needed to do this, and I would propose keeping as many of the original sentences as possible. I have not done this. Probably Bill Gropp and I should try to do it. "build" should be "built" on line 11 of page 2 "five types of areas" should be "five areas" in line 48 of page 2 The rest of it looks OK to me, except that lines 25-27 on page 6 duplicate lines 28-30. Lines 23-24 on page 6 don't really match what is actually in the Table of Contents in the front matter. I didn't go check the contents of the appendices. But something is not quite right here. I also read through Chapters 6 and 9 (Topologies and Dynamic), which are unchanged in the merge, and they seem fine to me as they stand. *

1 0