January 2012 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-forum] March MPI Forum meeting
by Jim Dinan 30 Jan '12

30 Jan '12

Hi Rich, We've made ticket0 changes to tickets 286 and 305 per feedback from the last meeting. We're planning to do a first vote, but will need a little time to read the ticket0 changes. Thanks, ~Jim. On 1/29/12 7:35 PM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > Registration is up for the meeting, as is the agenda. Please check out the agenda - Rolf has done a lot of work to figure out the open 3.0 tickets. For those that have already passe a reading, there is no issue - voting will progress. On the other ones, I listed the ticket owner for all of these, to make sure that folks are aware that their tickets are up for discussion. If folks do not want to proceed with these, please let me know. Those that are on the hook are Koziel, Gropp, Hoefler, Dinan, Tillier, Snir, Squyres, and Moody - please confirm that you are OK with these tickets. Also, Traff and Ritzdorf are owners of two tickets, so someone else will need to move these along. > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] March MPI Forum meeting
by Graham, Richard L. 30 Jan '12

30 Jan '12

No - I forgot to remove this Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Squyres [jsquyres(a)cisco.com<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 08:24 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] March MPI Forum meeting Rich -- http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/March_2012_logistics.php says that we're at Wildfire Chicago again for the 3rd day. Is that right? On Jan 29, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > Registration is up for the meeting, as is the agenda. Please check out the agenda - Rolf has done a lot of work to figure out the open 3.0 tickets. For those that have already passe a reading, there is no issue - voting will progress. On the other ones, I listed the ticket owner for all of these, to make sure that folks are aware that their tickets are up for discussion. If folks do not want to proceed with these, please let me know. Those that are on the hook are Koziel, Gropp, Hoefler, Dinan, Tillier, Snir, Squyres, and Moody - please confirm that you are OK with these tickets. Also, Traff and Ritzdorf are owners of two tickets, so someone else will need to move these along. > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] March MPI Forum meeting
by Jeff Squyres 30 Jan '12

30 Jan '12

Rich -- http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/March_2012_logistics.php says that we're at Wildfire Chicago again for the 3rd day. Is that right? On Jan 29, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > Registration is up for the meeting, as is the agenda. Please check out the agenda - Rolf has done a lot of work to figure out the open 3.0 tickets. For those that have already passe a reading, there is no issue - voting will progress. On the other ones, I listed the ticket owner for all of these, to make sure that folks are aware that their tickets are up for discussion. If folks do not want to proceed with these, please let me know. Those that are on the hook are Koziel, Gropp, Hoefler, Dinan, Tillier, Snir, Squyres, and Moody - please confirm that you are OK with these tickets. Also, Traff and Ritzdorf are owners of two tickets, so someone else will need to move these along. > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

March MPI Forum meeting
by Graham, Richard L. 29 Jan '12

29 Jan '12

Registration is up for the meeting, as is the agenda. Please check out the agenda - Rolf has done a lot of work to figure out the open 3.0 tickets. For those that have already passe a reading, there is no issue - voting will progress. On the other ones, I listed the ticket owner for all of these, to make sure that folks are aware that their tickets are up for discussion. If folks do not want to proceed with these, please let me know. Those that are on the hook are Koziel, Gropp, Hoefler, Dinan, Tillier, Snir, Squyres, and Moody - please confirm that you are OK with these tickets. Also, Traff and Ritzdorf are owners of two tickets, so someone else will need to move these along. Rich

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Ticket 125/126 PDF ready for review
by Rolf Rabenseifner 29 Jan '12

29 Jan '12

Do we have any problem with existing applications that go with current syntax and examples, when we change the MPI library and examples into the other syntax? I expect no. Here a list of all location, and at the end my PROPOSAL: MPI-2.2 p24:7 MPI_Init((void *)0, (void *)0); MPI-2.2 p25:21-28 and p209:10-14, p209:27-32, p210:6-12, p210:31-39, p211:32-41, p212:23-29, p213:47-p214:15, p221:38-46, p222:46-p223:16, p326:40-48, p327:33-39 int main( int argc, char **argv ) { ... MPI_Init( &argc, &argv ); MPI-2.2 p290:42 int MPI_Init(int *argc, char ***argv) MPI-2.2 p291:7-9 int main(int argc, char **argv) { MPI_Init(&argc, &argv); MPI-2.2 p316:40-46, and p317:39-43 int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { ... MPI_Init(&argc, &argv); MPI-2.2 p384:27 int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char *((*argv)[]), int required, int *provided) PROPOSAL: Based on the number of locations and the history (MPI_Init is many years older), I would recommend to change only the definition of MPI_Init_thread to int MPI_Init_thread(... char ***argv ... and keep the three different usage examples with (1x) MPI_Init((void *)0, (void *)0); (13x) int main( int argc, char **argv ) MPI_Init(&argc, &argv); (2x) int main(int argc, char *argv[]) MPI_Init(&argc, &argv); We may add a short comment into the two major examples p25 and p291: p25:21 and p291:7 read int main(int argc, char **argv) but should read int main(int argc, char **argv) /* or int main(int argc, char *argv[]) */ I would say that this is a minimal change solving the problem to make clear that argv is an array of strings and to have consistent definitions of MPI_Init and MPI_Init_thread. Best regards Rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> > To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:51:08 PM > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Ticket 125/126 PDF ready for review > Yeah, I don't care enough either, I just want someone to tell me which > way to go and I'll make the LaTeX change accordingly. > > -Fab > > Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 at 10:50:37 > > > I am secretary. I declare ***! > > > > (...if only it were so easy...) > > > > Regardless, I agree with the ultimate end goal: INIT and INIT-thread > > should > > be the same. > > > > Sent from my phone. No type good. > > > > On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:41 PM, "Jeff Hammond" <jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov> > > wrote: > > > >> I favor "int main(int argc, char *argv[]);" because it is clear > >> that > >> the second argument is an array of "char*". I believe that the > >> standard uses this convention in some places (perhaps nonuniformly) > >> to > >> make it clear when the argument is an array, as opposed to a > >> pointer > >> to a scalar. However, I believe there is no good answer because C's > >> handling of strings is stupid. > >> > >> Ultimately, this is a religious question and cannot be reasoned > >> about. > >> I favor letting Bill or another equivalently Pope-like individual > >> decide this question once and for all. > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > >> <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > >>> In C ** and *[] are the same, so I'd go with the simpler ***. > >>> > >>> Sent from my phone. No type good. > >>> > >>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:05 PM, "Fab Tillier" > >>> <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I dunno. I guess it depends on what you think the prototype for C > >>>> main is. > >>>> > >>>> int main(int argc, char *argv[]); > >>>> or > >>>> int main(int argc, char **argv); > >>>> > >>>> I've mostly seen it as the former, so was trying to stay > >>>> consistent with > > that. After all, argv is an array of char*, and in MPI_Init, it's a > > pointer to an > > array of char*... > >>>> > >>>> I can't say I care really strongly about this one, I just think > >>>> MPI_Init and > > MPI_Init_thread should be consistent, and the ticket was clarifying > > what > > parameters were arrays vs. pointers. > >>>> > >>>> -Fab > >>>> > >>>> Jeff Squyres wrote on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 at 05:03:29 > >>>> > >>>>> I think it looks ok, meaning that I checked your changes. I did > >>>>> not > >>>>> check to see if you missed any. > >>>>> > >>>>> That being said, I'm not a fan of the MPI_INIT_THREAD C > >>>>> declaration > >>>>> -- it seems to just be more confusing than using ***. > >>>>> Specifically, > >>>>> it's: > >>>>> > >>>>> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char *((*argv)[]), int required, > >>>>> int > >>>>> *provided) > >>>>> > >>>>> Personally, I think *** is cleaner/easier to understand: > >>>>> > >>>>> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char ***argv, int required, int > >>>>> *provided) > >>>>> > >>>>> I would advocate changing MPI_Init_thread to *** rather than > >>>>> changing MPI_Init to the complicated [] syntax. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Folks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've implemented the changes to the standard document for > >>>>>> tickets > > 125 > >>>>> and 126. The PDF is attached to the ticket, and available here: > >>>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/raw- > >>>>> attachment/ticket/125/ticket-125.pdf > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A couple notes where I deviated from the tickets: - I didn't > >>>>>> distinguish between input and output parameter changes, so all > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> changes are marked as ticket125 - I did not add 'const' for the > >>>>>> input parameters, as that was already done by ticket 140 - I > >>>>>> only > >>>>>> updated the C bindings - I did not update MPI_Type_hindexed and > >>>>>> MPI_Type_struct in the deprecated chapter. - I updated MPI_Init > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> match the parameter definition of MPI_Init_thread. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'd appreciate if folks could take a look and comment, letting > >>>>>> me know > >>>>>> if I botched anything, or missed anything that should be > >>>>>> changed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> -Fab > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list > >>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> mpi-forum mailing list > >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> mpi-forum mailing list > >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jeff Hammond > >> Argonne Leadership Computing Facility > >> University of Chicago Computation Institute > >> jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 > >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond > >> https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/old/index.php/User:Jhammond > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpi-forum mailing list > >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30)

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Ticket 125/126 PDF ready for review
by Fab Tillier 28 Jan '12

28 Jan '12

Yeah, I don't care enough either, I just want someone to tell me which way to go and I'll make the LaTeX change accordingly. -Fab Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 at 10:50:37 > I am secretary. I declare ***! > > (...if only it were so easy...) > > Regardless, I agree with the ultimate end goal: INIT and INIT-thread should > be the same. > > Sent from my phone. No type good. > > On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:41 PM, "Jeff Hammond" <jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov> > wrote: > >> I favor "int main(int argc, char *argv[]);" because it is clear that >> the second argument is an array of "char*". I believe that the >> standard uses this convention in some places (perhaps nonuniformly) to >> make it clear when the argument is an array, as opposed to a pointer >> to a scalar. However, I believe there is no good answer because C's >> handling of strings is stupid. >> >> Ultimately, this is a religious question and cannot be reasoned about. >> I favor letting Bill or another equivalently Pope-like individual >> decide this question once and for all. >> >> Jeff >> >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) >> <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >>> In C ** and *[] are the same, so I'd go with the simpler ***. >>> >>> Sent from my phone. No type good. >>> >>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:05 PM, "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I dunno. I guess it depends on what you think the prototype for C >>>> main is. >>>> >>>> int main(int argc, char *argv[]); >>>> or >>>> int main(int argc, char **argv); >>>> >>>> I've mostly seen it as the former, so was trying to stay consistent with > that. After all, argv is an array of char*, and in MPI_Init, it's a pointer to an > array of char*... >>>> >>>> I can't say I care really strongly about this one, I just think MPI_Init and > MPI_Init_thread should be consistent, and the ticket was clarifying what > parameters were arrays vs. pointers. >>>> >>>> -Fab >>>> >>>> Jeff Squyres wrote on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 at 05:03:29 >>>> >>>>> I think it looks ok, meaning that I checked your changes. I did not >>>>> check to see if you missed any. >>>>> >>>>> That being said, I'm not a fan of the MPI_INIT_THREAD C declaration >>>>> -- it seems to just be more confusing than using ***. Specifically, >>>>> it's: >>>>> >>>>> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char *((*argv)[]), int required, int >>>>> *provided) >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I think *** is cleaner/easier to understand: >>>>> >>>>> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char ***argv, int required, int >>>>> *provided) >>>>> >>>>> I would advocate changing MPI_Init_thread to *** rather than >>>>> changing MPI_Init to the complicated [] syntax. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've implemented the changes to the standard document for tickets > 125 >>>>> and 126. The PDF is attached to the ticket, and available here: >>>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/raw- >>>>> attachment/ticket/125/ticket-125.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> A couple notes where I deviated from the tickets: - I didn't >>>>>> distinguish between input and output parameter changes, so all the >>>>>> changes are marked as ticket125 - I did not add 'const' for the >>>>>> input parameters, as that was already done by ticket 140 - I only >>>>>> updated the C bindings - I did not update MPI_Type_hindexed and >>>>>> MPI_Type_struct in the deprecated chapter. - I updated MPI_Init to >>>>>> match the parameter definition of MPI_Init_thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd appreciate if folks could take a look and comment, letting me know >>>>>> if I botched anything, or missed anything that should be changed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> -Fab >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Hammond >> Argonne Leadership Computing Facility >> University of Chicago Computation Institute >> jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond >> https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/old/index.php/User:Jhammond >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Ticket 125/126 PDF ready for review
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 28 Jan '12

28 Jan '12

I am secretary. I declare ***! (...if only it were so easy...) Regardless, I agree with the ultimate end goal: INIT and INIT-thread should be the same. Sent from my phone. No type good. On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:41 PM, "Jeff Hammond" <jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov> wrote: > I favor "int main(int argc, char *argv[]);" because it is clear that > the second argument is an array of "char*". I believe that the > standard uses this convention in some places (perhaps nonuniformly) to > make it clear when the argument is an array, as opposed to a pointer > to a scalar. However, I believe there is no good answer because C's > handling of strings is stupid. > > Ultimately, this is a religious question and cannot be reasoned about. > I favor letting Bill or another equivalently Pope-like individual > decide this question once and for all. > > Jeff > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >> In C ** and *[] are the same, so I'd go with the simpler ***. >> >> Sent from my phone. No type good. >> >> On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:05 PM, "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> I dunno. I guess it depends on what you think the prototype for C main is. >>> >>> int main(int argc, char *argv[]); >>> or >>> int main(int argc, char **argv); >>> >>> I've mostly seen it as the former, so was trying to stay consistent with that. After all, argv is an array of char*, and in MPI_Init, it's a pointer to an array of char*... >>> >>> I can't say I care really strongly about this one, I just think MPI_Init and MPI_Init_thread should be consistent, and the ticket was clarifying what parameters were arrays vs. pointers. >>> >>> -Fab >>> >>> Jeff Squyres wrote on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 at 05:03:29 >>> >>>> I think it looks ok, meaning that I checked your changes. I did not check to >>>> see if you missed any. >>>> >>>> That being said, I'm not a fan of the MPI_INIT_THREAD C declaration -- it >>>> seems to just be more confusing than using ***. Specifically, it's: >>>> >>>> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char *((*argv)[]), int required, int *provided) >>>> >>>> Personally, I think *** is cleaner/easier to understand: >>>> >>>> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char ***argv, int required, int *provided) >>>> >>>> I would advocate changing MPI_Init_thread to *** rather than changing >>>> MPI_Init to the complicated [] syntax. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>> >>>>> I've implemented the changes to the standard document for tickets 125 >>>> and 126. The PDF is attached to the ticket, and available here: >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/raw- >>>> attachment/ticket/125/ticket-125.pdf >>>>> >>>>> A couple notes where I deviated from the tickets: - I didn't >>>>> distinguish between input and output parameter changes, so all the >>>>> changes are marked as ticket125 - I did not add 'const' for the input >>>>> parameters, as that was already done by ticket 140 - I only updated the >>>>> C bindings - I did not update MPI_Type_hindexed and MPI_Type_struct in >>>>> the deprecated chapter. - I updated MPI_Init to match the parameter >>>>> definition of MPI_Init_thread. >>>>> >>>>> I'd appreciate if folks could take a look and comment, letting me know >>>>> if I botched anything, or missed anything that should be changed. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> -Fab >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > Argonne Leadership Computing Facility > University of Chicago Computation Institute > jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond > https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/old/index.php/User:Jhammond > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Ticket 125/126 PDF ready for review
by Jeff Hammond 28 Jan '12

28 Jan '12

I favor "int main(int argc, char *argv[]);" because it is clear that the second argument is an array of "char*". I believe that the standard uses this convention in some places (perhaps nonuniformly) to make it clear when the argument is an array, as opposed to a pointer to a scalar. However, I believe there is no good answer because C's handling of strings is stupid. Ultimately, this is a religious question and cannot be reasoned about. I favor letting Bill or another equivalently Pope-like individual decide this question once and for all. Jeff On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: > In C ** and *[] are the same, so I'd go with the simpler ***. > > Sent from my phone. No type good. > > On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:05 PM, "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> wrote: > >> I dunno. ï¿½I guess it depends on what you think the prototype for C main is. >> >> int main(int argc, char *argv[]); >> or >> int main(int argc, char **argv); >> >> I've mostly seen it as the former, so was trying to stay consistent with that. ï¿½After all, argv is an array of char*, and in MPI_Init, it's a pointer to an array of char*... >> >> I can't say I care really strongly about this one, I just think MPI_Init and MPI_Init_thread should be consistent, and the ticket was clarifying what parameters were arrays vs. pointers. >> >> -Fab >> >> Jeff Squyres wrote on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 at 05:03:29 >> >>> I think it looks ok, meaning that I checked your changes. ï¿½I did not check to >>> see if you missed any. >>> >>> That being said, I'm not a fan of the MPI_INIT_THREAD C declaration -- it >>> seems to just be more confusing than using ***. ï¿½Specifically, it's: >>> >>> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char *((*argv)[]), int required, int *provided) >>> >>> Personally, I think *** is cleaner/easier to understand: >>> >>> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char ***argv, int required, int *provided) >>> >>> I would advocate changing MPI_Init_thread to *** rather than changing >>> MPI_Init to the complicated [] syntax. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> I've implemented the changes to the standard document for tickets 125 >>> and 126. ï¿½The PDF is attached to the ticket, and available here: >>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/raw- >>> attachment/ticket/125/ticket-125.pdf >>>> >>>> A couple notes where I deviated from the tickets: - I didn't >>>> distinguish between input and output parameter changes, so all the >>>> changes are marked as ticket125 - I did not add 'const' for the input >>>> parameters, as that was already done by ticket 140 - I only updated the >>>> C bindings - I did not update MPI_Type_hindexed and MPI_Type_struct in >>>> the deprecated chapter. - I updated MPI_Init to match the parameter >>>> definition of MPI_Init_thread. >>>> >>>> I'd appreciate if folks could take a look and comment, letting me know >>>> if I botched anything, or missed anything that should be changed. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Fab >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/old/index.php/User:Jhammond

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Ticket 125/126 PDF ready for review
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 28 Jan '12

28 Jan '12

In C ** and *[] are the same, so I'd go with the simpler ***. Sent from my phone. No type good. On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:05 PM, "Fab Tillier" <ftillier(a)microsoft.com> wrote: > I dunno. I guess it depends on what you think the prototype for C main is. > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]); > or > int main(int argc, char **argv); > > I've mostly seen it as the former, so was trying to stay consistent with that. After all, argv is an array of char*, and in MPI_Init, it's a pointer to an array of char*... > > I can't say I care really strongly about this one, I just think MPI_Init and MPI_Init_thread should be consistent, and the ticket was clarifying what parameters were arrays vs. pointers. > > -Fab > > Jeff Squyres wrote on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 at 05:03:29 > >> I think it looks ok, meaning that I checked your changes. I did not check to >> see if you missed any. >> >> That being said, I'm not a fan of the MPI_INIT_THREAD C declaration -- it >> seems to just be more confusing than using ***. Specifically, it's: >> >> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char *((*argv)[]), int required, int *provided) >> >> Personally, I think *** is cleaner/easier to understand: >> >> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char ***argv, int required, int *provided) >> >> I would advocate changing MPI_Init_thread to *** rather than changing >> MPI_Init to the complicated [] syntax. >> >> >> >> On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> I've implemented the changes to the standard document for tickets 125 >> and 126. The PDF is attached to the ticket, and available here: >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/raw- >> attachment/ticket/125/ticket-125.pdf >>> >>> A couple notes where I deviated from the tickets: - I didn't >>> distinguish between input and output parameter changes, so all the >>> changes are marked as ticket125 - I did not add 'const' for the input >>> parameters, as that was already done by ticket 140 - I only updated the >>> C bindings - I did not update MPI_Type_hindexed and MPI_Type_struct in >>> the deprecated chapter. - I updated MPI_Init to match the parameter >>> definition of MPI_Init_thread. >>> >>> I'd appreciate if folks could take a look and comment, letting me know >>> if I botched anything, or missed anything that should be changed. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Fab >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Ticket 125/126 PDF ready for review
by Fab Tillier 28 Jan '12

28 Jan '12

I dunno. I guess it depends on what you think the prototype for C main is. int main(int argc, char *argv[]); or int main(int argc, char **argv); I've mostly seen it as the former, so was trying to stay consistent with that. After all, argv is an array of char*, and in MPI_Init, it's a pointer to an array of char*... I can't say I care really strongly about this one, I just think MPI_Init and MPI_Init_thread should be consistent, and the ticket was clarifying what parameters were arrays vs. pointers. -Fab Jeff Squyres wrote on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 at 05:03:29 > I think it looks ok, meaning that I checked your changes. I did not check to > see if you missed any. > > That being said, I'm not a fan of the MPI_INIT_THREAD C declaration -- it > seems to just be more confusing than using ***. Specifically, it's: > > int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char *((*argv)[]), int required, int *provided) > > Personally, I think *** is cleaner/easier to understand: > > int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char ***argv, int required, int *provided) > > I would advocate changing MPI_Init_thread to *** rather than changing > MPI_Init to the complicated [] syntax. > > > > On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> >> I've implemented the changes to the standard document for tickets 125 > and 126. The PDF is attached to the ticket, and available here: > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/raw- > attachment/ticket/125/ticket-125.pdf >> >> A couple notes where I deviated from the tickets: - I didn't >> distinguish between input and output parameter changes, so all the >> changes are marked as ticket125 - I did not add 'const' for the input >> parameters, as that was already done by ticket 140 - I only updated the >> C bindings - I did not update MPI_Type_hindexed and MPI_Type_struct in >> the deprecated chapter. - I updated MPI_Init to match the parameter >> definition of MPI_Init_thread. >> >> I'd appreciate if folks could take a look and comment, letting me know >> if I botched anything, or missed anything that should be changed. >> >> Thanks, >> -Fab >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >

1 0