- Mpi-22 - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Non-collective reductions: MPI_Op_reduce
by unknown＠example.com 03 Apr '09

03 Apr '09

I hope this is the right forum. It looks like I can't make a Trac account. There is no way for the user to apply an MPI_Op to local buffers. I am missing this ability for implementing a domain-specific irregular reduction, for which use of MPI_Op would be natural. This functionality would be useful for many domain-specific collective operations. The semantics I'm looking for are identical to Open MPI's ompi_op_reduce(). Any chance this could be made available in MPI-2.2 (or 3)? Jed *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] [MPI Forum] #71: Add routine for registering callback when finalize occurs
by unknown＠example.com 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

I checked MPICH2, and it doesn't invoke the attribute destroy functions in the order required here. It wouldn't be hard to change, but I haven't had a chance to do that. Bill On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:26 PM, MPI Forum wrote: > #71: Add routine for registering callback when finalize occurs > ------------------------------------- > +-------------------------------------- > Reporter: koziol | Owner: koziol > Type: Enhancements to standard | Status: assigned > Priority: Waiting for reviews | Milestone: 2009/04/06 > Chicago > Version: MPI 2.2 | Resolution: > Keywords: | Implementation: Waiting > ------------------------------------- > +-------------------------------------- > > Comment(by jsquyres): > > Other than missing a changelog, this proposal looks good (read: we > need a > changelog entry ASAP before we can discuss it next week in Chicago!). > > Rajeev -- I think the issue with enforced ordering was inspired by > potentially using multiple different middleware packages that may > not be > able to coordinate their shutdown callbacks. E.g., if package A uses > package B which uses MPI, then you ''need'' to have B's finalize > callback > called before A's. A and B would be hard-pressed to coordinate this > if > they didn't know about each other. And so on. > > FWIW, Open MPI does ''not'' invoke COMM_SELF callbacks in any > particular > order -- it'll actually be a little painful to convert to assign an > order > (because we use a hash table to store this stuff). But it's all just > bookkeeping -- it's certainly do-able. So someone needs to do an > open- > source implementation. > > Bill -- did you get a chance to see if MPICH2 destroys COMM_SELF > attributes in order? > > -- > Ticket URL: <https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/71#comment:17 > > > MPI Forum <https://svn.mpi-forum.org/> > MPI Forum William Gropp Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callbackwhen finalize occurs
by unknown＠example.com 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

Sorry -- I didn't see this much-more-complete discussion before I replied to the other mail. I agree with most of Dick's points (e.g., an MPI will likely implement the same mechanism for COMM_SELF as it does for all other attribute destruction functionality). But I don't feel strongly one way or the other (apply the ordering just to COMM_SELF or to all attribute destruction). To me, the COMM_SELF attribute destruction stuff is already a hack -- elegant or not -- so adding ordering on it is no big deal. But like I said, I don't have strong feelings either way. On Mar 30, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Richard Treumann wrote: > I understand that the immediate motive is associated with the use of > attribute delete callbacks that occur when MPI_COMM_SELF is freed at > MPI_FINALIZE. > > That does not alter the fact that when MPI-2 imposed an implicit > free of MPI_COMM_SELF in MPI_FINALIZE to allow the use of attribute > delete functions for cleanup it involved a narrow extension of a > general MPI facility related to attributes and certain object types. > To allow attribute delete functions for all other communicators > (etc) to occur in arbitrary order while demanding that attribute > delete for MPI_COMM_SELF have a standards defined order is an > inelegant hack (in my opinion). Freeing MPI_COMM_SELF within > MPI_FINALIZE was a relatively elegant hack because it did not > introduce inconsistency. > > Add to that the probability that an MPI implementor is likely to use > the same algorithms for all attribute management rather than write > special case code for MPI_COMM_SELF leads me to argue that if a > defined order for attribute delete callbacks is adopted it should be > adopted broadly to maintain a consistent flavor across the standard. > > If an existing MPI implementation is currently deleting in some > other order and an application happens to work on that MPI only > because of that order, that application is at least non-portable and > probably should be considered buggy. If (or when) the implementation > adopts the fifo order for attribute deletes on "user_comm" it would > be clear that the implementation change had not "broken the user". > > A general mandate that attribute deletion callbacks on all object > types must occur in fifo order for an implementation to be MPI 2.2 > compliant should not break any "correct" MPI application and should > not be noticeably harder for implementors. > > It will require tracking down all places in the standard that > currently say the order is arbitrary so it is harder to get all > ducks in a row for the ticket. > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/28/2009 11:57:19 PM: > > > [image removed] > > > > Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when > > finalize occurs > > > > Quincey Koziol > > > > to: > > > > mpi-22 > > > > 03/30/2009 09:28 AM > > > > Sent by: > > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > > > > Please respond to "MPI 2.2" > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:24:26 -0400 > > > From: Richard Treumann <treumann_at_[hidden]> > > > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering > callback > > > when finalize occurs > > > To: "MPI 2.2" <mpi-22_at_[hidden]> > > > Message-ID: > > > <OFE2F8673A.D3771BE2- > > > ON85257585.005F95BC-85257585.005F9F47_at_[hidden]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > Why would this be specific to MPI_COMM_SELF? If this is the right > > > thing to > > > do, shouldn't it apply to attribute delete functions on all > disposed > > > objects? > > > > The ticket is oriented to what happens at MPI_Finalize, really, > and > > not so much about MPI_COMM_SELF per se. The attribute callback on > > MPI_COMM_SELF was just the accepted way in the standard to "have > > something happen" when MPI_Finalize was called. > > > > Quincey > > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > > > IBM Systems & Technology Group > > > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > > > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > > > > > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/26/2009 12:50:40 > PM: > > > > > >> [image removed] > > >> > > >> [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when > > >> finalize > > > occurs > > >> > > >> Quincey Koziol > > >> > > >> to: > > >> > > >> mpi-22 > > >> > > >> 03/26/2009 12:54 PM: > > >> > > >> Sent by: > > >> > > >> mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > > >> > > >> Please respond to "MPI 2.2" > > >> > > >> Hi all, > > >> Could another two people review this ticket for specifying the > order > > >> that attribute delete callbacks should be made: > > >> > > >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/71 > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Quincey > > >> > > >> [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Richard Treumann/Poughkeepsie/ > > >> IBM] _______________________________________________ > > >> mpi-22 mailing list > > >> mpi-22_at_[hidden] > > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 > > >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when finalize occurs
by unknown＠example.com 02 Apr '09

02 Apr '09

FWIW, I think this ticket is only about clarifying an existing semantic -- the notion of adding callbacks on MPI_COMM_SELF dates back quite a ways (I think all the way back to MPI-1 somewhere? I don't remember). On Mar 26, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Richard Treumann wrote: > Why would this be specific to MPI_COMM_SELF? If this is the right > thing to do, shouldn't it apply to attribute delete functions on all > disposed objects? > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/26/2009 12:50:40 PM: > > > [image removed] > > > > [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when > finalize occurs > > > > Quincey Koziol > > > > to: > > > > mpi-22 > > > > 03/26/2009 12:54 PM > > > > Sent by: > > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > > > > Please respond to "MPI 2.2" > > > > Hi all, > > Could another two people review this ticket for specifying the > order > > that attribute delete callbacks should be made: > > > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/71 > > > > Thanks, > > Quincey > > > > [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Richard Treumann/Poughkeepsie/ > > IBM] _______________________________________________ > > mpi-22 mailing list > > mpi-22_at_[hidden] > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 > _______________________________________________ > mpi-22 mailing list > mpi-22_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Please review ticket #140: Add const Keyword to the C bindings
by unknown＠example.com 01 Apr '09

01 Apr '09

Reminder: We need reviewers for ticket #140 for it to go through first reading in next week meeting. If you reviewed ticket #46, please review ticket #140 the diff between the two is quite trivial. If you were actively involved in discussing this ticket over email, please review and comment. Here's a list of ticket #46 reviewers: Darius Buntinas (thanks) Richard Graham Alexander Supalov Jesper Larsson Traeff Rajeev Thakur David Solt Torsten Hoefler Thanks, .Erez _____________________________________________ From: Erez Haba Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 11:52 AM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Please review ticket #140: Add const Keyword to the C bindings I opened a new ticket #140<https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/140> for the "Add const Keyword to the C bindings" proposal instead of existing tickets #46<https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/46>, #129<https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/129> & #130<https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/130>. Ticket #140 differs from ticket #46 only by the applied amendments in tickets #129 and #130. Chapter authors please review this ticket before the next forum meeting. Thanks, .Erez *

1 0

Additional Reviews for ticket #59: Clarification on MPI::FILE_NULL, MPI::WIN_NULL and MPI::COMM_NULL
by unknown＠example.com 30 Mar '09

30 Mar '09

Hi, I'm looking for 2 additional reviews for Ticket #59. If there is additional interest to clarify the status of MPI::FILE_NULL and MPI::WIN_NULL and if you are interested to have the predefined C++ datatypes const-qualified again, please review ticket 59 (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/59) Many thanks in advance Hubert *

1 0

Fw: Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when finalize occurs
by unknown＠example.com 30 Mar '09

30 Mar '09

I should have said LIFO below. The proposal is to have attribute deletion callback occur in the reverse of the order in which they were placed. I have no objection to making this part of the standard but do not think it should be unique to MPI_COMM_SELF if we adopt it. Dick Treumann - MPI Team IBM Systems & Technology Group Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 ----- Forwarded by Richard Treumann/Poughkeepsie/IBM on 03/30/2009 02:49 PM ----- From: Richard Treumann/Poughkeepsie/IBM_at_IBMUS To: "MPI 2.2" <mpi-22_at_[hidden]> Date: 03/30/2009 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when finalize occurs I understand that the immediate motive is associated with the use of attribute delete callbacks that occur when MPI_COMM_SELF is freed at MPI_FINALIZE. That does not alter the fact that when MPI-2 imposed an implicit free of MPI_COMM_SELF in MPI_FINALIZE to allow the use of attribute delete functions for cleanup it involved a narrow extension of a general MPI facility related to attributes and certain object types. To allow attribute delete functions for all other communicators (etc) to occur in arbitrary order while demanding that attribute delete for MPI_COMM_SELF have a standards defined order is an inelegant hack (in my opinion). Freeing MPI_COMM_SELF within MPI_FINALIZE was a relatively elegant hack because it did not introduce inconsistency. Add to that the probability that an MPI implementor is likely to use the same algorithms for all attribute management rather than write special case code for MPI_COMM_SELF leads me to argue that if a defined order for attribute delete callbacks is adopted it should be adopted broadly to maintain a consistent flavor across the standard. If an existing MPI implementation is currently deleting in some other order and an application happens to work on that MPI only because of that order, that application is at least non-portable and probably should be considered buggy. If (or when) the implementation adopts the fifo order for attribute deletes on "user_comm" it would be clear that the implementation change had not "broken the user". A general mandate that attribute deletion callbacks on all object types must occur in fifo order for an implementation to be MPI 2.2 compliant should not break any "correct" MPI application and should not be noticeably harder for implementors. It will require tracking down all places in the standard that currently say the order is arbitrary so it is harder to get all ducks in a row for the ticket. Dick Treumann - MPI Team IBM Systems & Technology Group Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/28/2009 11:57:19 PM: > [image removed] > > Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when > finalize occurs > > Quincey Koziol > > to: > > mpi-22 > > 03/30/2009 09:28 AM > > Sent by: > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > > Please respond to "MPI 2.2" > > > > Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:24:26 -0400 > > From: Richard Treumann <treumann_at_[hidden]> > > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback > > when finalize occurs > > To: "MPI 2.2" <mpi-22_at_[hidden]> > > Message-ID: > > <OFE2F8673A.D3771BE2- > > ON85257585.005F95BC-85257585.005F9F47_at_[hidden]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Why would this be specific to MPI_COMM_SELF? If this is the right > > thing to > > do, shouldn't it apply to attribute delete functions on all disposed > > objects? > > The ticket is oriented to what happens at MPI_Finalize, really, and > not so much about MPI_COMM_SELF per se. The attribute callback on > MPI_COMM_SELF was just the accepted way in the standard to "have > something happen" when MPI_Finalize was called. > > Quincey > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > > IBM Systems & Technology Group > > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/26/2009 12:50:40 PM: > > > >> [image removed] > >> > >> [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when > >> finalize > > occurs > >> > >> Quincey Koziol > >> > >> to: > >> > >> mpi-22 > >> > >> 03/26/2009 12:54 PM: > >> > >> Sent by: > >> > >> mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > >> > >> Please respond to "MPI 2.2" > >> > >> Hi all, > >> Could another two people review this ticket for specifying the order > >> that attribute delete callbacks should be made: > >> > >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/71 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Quincey > >> > >> [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Richard Treumann/Poughkeepsie/ > >> IBM] _______________________________________________ > >> mpi-22 mailing list > >> mpi-22_at_[hidden] > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 > >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when finalize occurs
by unknown＠example.com 30 Mar '09

30 Mar '09

I understand that the immediate motive is associated with the use of attribute delete callbacks that occur when MPI_COMM_SELF is freed at MPI_FINALIZE. That does not alter the fact that when MPI-2 imposed an implicit free of MPI_COMM_SELF in MPI_FINALIZE to allow the use of attribute delete functions for cleanup it involved a narrow extension of a general MPI facility related to attributes and certain object types. To allow attribute delete functions for all other communicators (etc) to occur in arbitrary order while demanding that attribute delete for MPI_COMM_SELF have a standards defined order is an inelegant hack (in my opinion). Freeing MPI_COMM_SELF within MPI_FINALIZE was a relatively elegant hack because it did not introduce inconsistency. Add to that the probability that an MPI implementor is likely to use the same algorithms for all attribute management rather than write special case code for MPI_COMM_SELF leads me to argue that if a defined order for attribute delete callbacks is adopted it should be adopted broadly to maintain a consistent flavor across the standard. If an existing MPI implementation is currently deleting in some other order and an application happens to work on that MPI only because of that order, that application is at least non-portable and probably should be considered buggy. If (or when) the implementation adopts the fifo order for attribute deletes on "user_comm" it would be clear that the implementation change had not "broken the user". A general mandate that attribute deletion callbacks on all object types must occur in fifo order for an implementation to be MPI 2.2 compliant should not break any "correct" MPI application and should not be noticeably harder for implementors. It will require tracking down all places in the standard that currently say the order is arbitrary so it is harder to get all ducks in a row for the ticket. Dick Treumann - MPI Team IBM Systems & Technology Group Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/28/2009 11:57:19 PM: > [image removed] > > Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when > finalize occurs > > Quincey Koziol > > to: > > mpi-22 > > 03/30/2009 09:28 AM > > Sent by: > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > > Please respond to "MPI 2.2" > > > > Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:24:26 -0400 > > From: Richard Treumann <treumann_at_[hidden]> > > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback > > when finalize occurs > > To: "MPI 2.2" <mpi-22_at_[hidden]> > > Message-ID: > > <OFE2F8673A.D3771BE2- > > ON85257585.005F95BC-85257585.005F9F47_at_[hidden]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Why would this be specific to MPI_COMM_SELF? If this is the right > > thing to > > do, shouldn't it apply to attribute delete functions on all disposed > > objects? > > The ticket is oriented to what happens at MPI_Finalize, really, and > not so much about MPI_COMM_SELF per se. The attribute callback on > MPI_COMM_SELF was just the accepted way in the standard to "have > something happen" when MPI_Finalize was called. > > Quincey > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > > IBM Systems & Technology Group > > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/26/2009 12:50:40 PM: > > > >> [image removed] > >> > >> [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when > >> finalize > > occurs > >> > >> Quincey Koziol > >> > >> to: > >> > >> mpi-22 > >> > >> 03/26/2009 12:54 PM: > >> > >> Sent by: > >> > >> mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > >> > >> Please respond to "MPI 2.2" > >> > >> Hi all, > >> Could another two people review this ticket for specifying the order > >> that attribute delete callbacks should be made: > >> > >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/71 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Quincey > >> > >> [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Richard Treumann/Poughkeepsie/ > >> IBM] _______________________________________________ > >> mpi-22 mailing list > >> mpi-22_at_[hidden] > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 > >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #33: Fix Scalability Issues in Graph Topology Interface
by unknown＠example.com 29 Mar '09

29 Mar '09

Hello, > We need more people reviewing this ticket to see if this is the right way to > fix the scalability problem with graph topologies. Among the new features > proposed in 2.2, it is a significant one and is not trivial to understand > and vote on unless you have studied it beforehand. > > Ticket URL: <https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/33 thanks Rajeev! We already had multiple reviews and constructive discussions about this ticket. The meeting is coming closer and we would like to receive more comments from a broader audience. As Rajeev already mentioned, this ticket is significant and a very important bugfix in scope of MPI-2.2. The ticket is also an important prepration for some efforts in the collective working group for MPI-3 (sparse collectives). Please read the ticket and participate in the discussions! A separate discussion is, that this ticket (optionally) proposed to deprecate the old non-scalable graph interface. Deprecating features in MPI-2.2 received little discussion so far. Due to the complexity and importance of this issue, I would like to ask for some time where the full forum collectively reviews and discusses this ticket in the style that we did nonblocking collective operations (I think we can "donate" time from the collective WG and/or the planned MPI-3 vote). Given the shortness of time and the procedural requirements of MPI-2.2, this should be done during the first day if the meeting. The ticket has been around for six months and was (briefly) discussed during each meeting, thus, I assume that most participants are familiar with the issue. Thanks & All the Best, Torsten -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Torsten Hoefler | Postdoctoral Researcher Open Systems Lab | Indiana University 150 S. Woodlawn Ave. | Bloomington, IN, 474045, USA Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when finalize occurs
by unknown＠example.com 28 Mar '09

28 Mar '09

> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:24:26 -0400 > From: Richard Treumann <treumann_at_[hidden]> > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback > when finalize occurs > To: "MPI 2.2" <mpi-22_at_[hidden]> > Message-ID: > <OFE2F8673A.D3771BE2- > ON85257585.005F95BC-85257585.005F9F47_at_[hidden]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Why would this be specific to MPI_COMM_SELF? If this is the right > thing to > do, shouldn't it apply to attribute delete functions on all disposed > objects? The ticket is oriented to what happens at MPI_Finalize, really, and not so much about MPI_COMM_SELF per se. The attribute callback on MPI_COMM_SELF was just the accepted way in the standard to "have something happen" when MPI_Finalize was called. Quincey > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > IBM Systems & Technology Group > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363 > > > mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 03/26/2009 12:50:40 PM: > >> [image removed] >> >> [Mpi-22] Ticket #71: Add routine for registering callback when >> finalize > occurs >> >> Quincey Koziol >> >> to: >> >> mpi-22 >> >> 03/26/2009 12:54 PM: >> >> Sent by: >> >> mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] >> >> Please respond to "MPI 2.2" >> >> Hi all, >> Could another two people review this ticket for specifying the order >> that attribute delete callbacks should be made: >> >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/71 >> >> Thanks, >> Quincey >> >> [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Richard Treumann/Poughkeepsie/ >> IBM] _______________________________________________ >> mpi-22 mailing list >> mpi-22_at_[hidden] >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 >

1 0