Rajeev, Since this is a regression from MPI 2.0, I think we need to fix this. I do not see a reason why we should not be able to fix these errors before the final vote. Is there someone that disagrees with this ? Rich On 7/21/08 10:18 PM, "Rajeev Thakur" <thakur_at_[hidden]> wrote:
Sent it to the wrong list earlier...
-----Original Message----- From: owner-mpi-21_at_[hidden] [mailto:owner-mpi-21_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Rajeev Thakur Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:12 PM To: mpi-21_at_[hidden] Subject: [mpi-21] A couple of bugs in 2.1
I found a couple of bugs in MPI 2.1:
* pg 332, ln 16-21: "MPI_REPLACE, like the other predefined operations, is defined only for the predefined MPI datatypes. Rationale: The rationale for this is that, for consistency, MPI_REPLACE should have the same limitations as the other operations. Extending it to all datatypes doesn't provide any real benefit."
That is not true. Derived datatypes are allowed in MPI_Accumulate for the predefined reduction operations as explained in the paragraph just above it.
* pg 237, line 1 and line 3: MPI_MAX_OBJECT should be MPI_MAX_OBJECT_NAME.
Accordingly, the Change Log needs to be updated for both these items.
The question is can these be fixed before the 2nd vote in Sept.? My understanding of the voting process is that the reason for having two separate votes in two separate meetings is to have a chance to catch such bugs. So it should be fixable. (Otherwise, what is the use of the 2nd vote?)
Rajeev
_______________________________________________ mpi-21 mailing list mpi-21_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-21
*