July 2019 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-forum] "BigCount" rendering in PDF
by Jeff Hammond 31 Jul '19

31 Jul '19

You’re going to have to mention C++. You can’t just pretend that C++ supports C11 generic, because it explicitly doesn’t. And you really should do this because it’s ridiculous not to use C++ polymorphism if we use C11’s. Jeff > On Jul 31, 2019, at 6:14 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpi-forum <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: > >> On Jul 31, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Joseph Schuchart via mpi-forum <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: >> >> Should we mark in the interface the fact that the MPI_Count overloads are only available in C11? I'm thinking about something similar to cppreference's distinction between C/C++ standard versions, e.g., >> >> >> ``` >> int MPI_Send(const void *buf, MPI_Count count, MPI_Datatype datatype, int dest, int tag, MPI_Comm comm) [>C11|C++] >> ``` > > These are exactly the kind of discussions that I'd like to have before the September meeting: what is the best way to render the output to convey the information in an aesthetic way? I'm terrible at this kind of stuff. > > ----- > > That being said, I would not want to mark anything as "C++", because the MPI spec does not explicitly support C++ at all. The text that will support this ticket will only have an Advice to Implementors for those implementations who want to continue to have an <mpi.h> that supports both C and C++. Per feedback we got in the Virtual Meeting last week, the advice is to *not* use C++ polymorphism, and, instead, treat C++ as a complier that does not support C11 _Generic (i.e., the MPI_Count-enabled version of MPI_Foo() will simply not be available -- see Froozle). > > The rationale here is that if an implementation supports C++ polymorphism, there are three options: > > 1. The standard needs to make official statements about C++, which basically re-introduces formal C++ support in the MPI spec (which is a Big Deal) > 2. PMPI-enabled tools will need to support non-standard C++ polymorphism in order to guarantee that they can intercept all MPI APIs when the application is written in C++ > 3. PMPI-enabled tools do not support intercepting all MPI APIs when the application is written in C++ > > None of those 3 options are attractive. > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] "BigCount" rendering in PDF
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 31 Jul '19

31 Jul '19

On Jul 31, 2019, at 4:31 AM, Joseph Schuchart via mpi-forum <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> wrote: > Should we mark in the interface the fact that the MPI_Count overloads are only available in C11? I'm thinking about something similar to cppreference's distinction between C/C++ standard versions, e.g., > > > ``` > int MPI_Send(const void *buf, MPI_Count count, MPI_Datatype datatype, int dest, int tag, MPI_Comm comm) [>C11|C++] > ``` These are exactly the kind of discussions that I'd like to have before the September meeting: what is the best way to render the output to convey the information in an aesthetic way? I'm terrible at this kind of stuff. ----- That being said, I would not want to mark anything as "C++", because the MPI spec does not explicitly support C++ at all. The text that will support this ticket will only have an Advice to Implementors for those implementations who want to continue to have an <mpi.h> that supports both C and C++. Per feedback we got in the Virtual Meeting last week, the advice is to *not* use C++ polymorphism, and, instead, treat C++ as a complier that does not support C11 _Generic (i.e., the MPI_Count-enabled version of MPI_Foo() will simply not be available -- see Froozle). The rationale here is that if an implementation supports C++ polymorphism, there are three options: 1. The standard needs to make official statements about C++, which basically re-introduces formal C++ support in the MPI spec (which is a Big Deal) 2. PMPI-enabled tools will need to support non-standard C++ polymorphism in order to guarantee that they can intercept all MPI APIs when the application is written in C++ 3. PMPI-enabled tools do not support intercepting all MPI APIs when the application is written in C++ None of those 3 options are attractive. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] "BigCount" rendering in PDF
by Joseph Schuchart 31 Jul '19

31 Jul '19

Jeff, The first look at the definitions might indeed be a bit confusing, as it is strange to see overloaded C functions (even though C11 _Generic has been around for a while). It is also not clear when the second variant (using MPI_Count) is available, that is only if C11 _Generic is supported by my compiler. Even worse, a C99 compiler will happily cast an MPI_Count argument passed by value to int without complaint or warning by default. Should we mark in the interface the fact that the MPI_Count overloads are only available in C11? I'm thinking about something similar to cppreference's distinction between C/C++ standard versions, e.g., ``` int MPI_Send(const void *buf, int count, MPI_Datatype datatype, int dest, int tag, MPI_Comm comm) int MPI_Send(const void *buf, MPI_Count count, MPI_Datatype datatype, int dest, int tag, MPI_Comm comm) [>C11|C++] int MPI_Send_x(const void *buf, MPI_Count count, MPI_Datatype datatype, int dest, int tag, MPI_Comm comm) ``` That way it is immediately clear that there is a catch here and users have to be careful. OpenShmem, for example, has that distinction too (although more explicit using paragraphs for different language flavors). Cheers, Joseph On 7/30/19 6:13 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpi-forum wrote: > _*SHORT VERSION*_ > > See the attached two PDFs for how "BigCount" will be rendered in the > MPI-4.0 PDF (pt2pt chapter and pt2pt/external interfaces in Annex A). > > Comments / suggestions are welcome, but you may only make comments / > suggestions if you have read all of the "MORE DETAIL" section, below. > > _*MORE DETAIL*_ > > We have split the work of the "BigCount" WG into two parts: > > 1. Updating all the bindings throughout the entire MPI spec. This is > further sub-divided into two parts: > 1a. Updating the bindings in the chapters of the MPI spec. > 1b. Updating the bindings listing in Annex A. > > 2. Updating text in various chapters (e.g., Terms&Conventions and > Language Bindings) describing BigCount, language consequences, > describing how the bindings appear in the rest of the doc, ...etc. > > We've incorporated all the feedback from the BigCount Virtual Meeting > last week, and I'd like to share samples of how #1a and #1b will look in > the MPI 4.0 PDF. > > Text for #2 will be read at the September meeting (stay tuned -- that > text will be published according to the normal 2-week deadline, etc.). > > Attached are 2 documents: > > 1. The point-to-point chapter rendered in the new style. Look at the > bindings for MPI_SEND and MPI_RECV, for example. > > 2. Annex A rendered in the new style (only some of the bindings have > been updated so far -- such as pt2pt and external interfaces). > > If you are confused when looking at these PDFs (e.g., why are there up > to 3 C bindings?), and/or if you weren't at the Virtual Meeting / didn't > watch the Webex after the fact, the feedback we received from the > Virtual Meeting is summarized below. It is a lot of wordswordswords and > is somewhat difficult to follow -- I highly suggest reading the rules > below while simultaneously examining the attached PDFs. The summary > below should make much more sense when looking at concrete examples. > > ----- > > The overall intent is: > > A. In MPI-4.0, expose "BigCount" functionality through language > polymorphism in the C bindings and the mpi_f08 module (we are /_not_/ > updating mpif.h or the mpi module). > > B. C11 _Generic polymorphism kinda sucks, *and* we're in a transition > period where not all C compilers are C11-capable. Hence, we're exposing > up to *3* C bindings per MPI procedure to applications (including > explicitly exposing the "_x" variant where relevant). > > C. Fortran polymorphism "just works" (skipping a longer explanation here > -- ask Rolf/Puri if you're interested in the details), so there will > only be up to *2* F08 bindings per MPI procedure. > > ----- > > For each binding in the main text of the document: > > 1. Show the "plain" MPI_Foo(...) C binding (e.g., as it appeared in MPI-3.1) > > 2. If the binding has count or displacement arguments: > 2a. Show a second MPI_Foo() C binding with count and displacement > arguments as MPI_Count and MPI_Aint, respectively. > 2b. If MPI_Foo() DOES NOT HAVE a corresponding MPI_Foo_x() in > MPI-3.1, show a third MPI_Foo_x(...) C binding with count/displacement > as MPI_Count/MPI_Aint. > > 3. Show the "plain" MPI_Foo(...) F08 binding (e.g., as it appeared in > MPI-3.1) > > 4. If the binding has count or displacement arguments: > 4a. Show a second MPI_Foo() F08 binding with count and displacement > arguments as INTEGER(KIND=MPI_COUNT_KIND) and INTEGER(MPI_ADDRESS_KIND), > respectively. > > 5. Show the "plain" F90 binding > > ----- > > References: > > - Slides we presented at the BigCount Virtual Meeting: > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10D_ws5NYAOI8m6KZKb31s9HxiSSmc_k5C62… > > - Webex Recording of the BigCount Virtual Meeting: > https://www.mpi-forum.org/virtual_meetings/ > > - Froozle MPI, a no-op MPI implementation showing a bindings > implementation of BigCount: https://github.com/jsquyres/froozle-mpi > > If you have read all the way down to this point, comments and feedback > are welcome. :-) > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com <mailto:[email protected]> > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] "BigCount" rendering in PDF
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 30 Jul '19

30 Jul '19

In the text: - We consciously put the "old" binding first (i.e., the int/INTEGER-enabled one), just for familiarity. In Annex A: - It's an alphabetical listing. ----- I don't have strong feelings about this. If the popular opinion is to move the C/F08 Count-enabled bindings first in the text renderings, it's a trivial change to make (it entails changing just a few lines of Python). > On Jul 30, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Bangalore, Purushotham <puri(a)uab.edu> wrote: > > Any reason why the function with MPI_Count appears first in the function index while it appears second in the chapter? > > Get Outlook for Android > > From: mpi-forum <mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> on behalf of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpi-forum <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 11:13:09 AM > To: MPI Forum list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Cc: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > Subject: [Mpi-forum] "BigCount" rendering in PDF > > SHORT VERSION > > See the attached two PDFs for how "BigCount" will be rendered in the MPI-4.0 PDF (pt2pt chapter and pt2pt/external interfaces in Annex A). > > Comments / suggestions are welcome, but you may only make comments / suggestions if you have read all of the "MORE DETAIL" section, below. > > MORE DETAIL > > We have split the work of the "BigCount" WG into two parts: > > 1. Updating all the bindings throughout the entire MPI spec. This is further sub-divided into two parts: > 1a. Updating the bindings in the chapters of the MPI spec. > 1b. Updating the bindings listing in Annex A. > > 2. Updating text in various chapters (e.g., Terms&Conventions and Language Bindings) describing BigCount, language consequences, describing how the bindings appear in the rest of the doc, ...etc. > > We've incorporated all the feedback from the BigCount Virtual Meeting last week, and I'd like to share samples of how #1a and #1b will look in the MPI 4.0 PDF. > > Text for #2 will be read at the September meeting (stay tuned -- that text will be published according to the normal 2-week deadline, etc.). > > Attached are 2 documents: > > 1. The point-to-point chapter rendered in the new style. Look at the bindings for MPI_SEND and MPI_RECV, for example. > > 2. Annex A rendered in the new style (only some of the bindings have been updated so far -- such as pt2pt and external interfaces). > > If you are confused when looking at these PDFs (e.g., why are there up to 3 C bindings?), and/or if you weren't at the Virtual Meeting / didn't watch the Webex after the fact, the feedback we received from the Virtual Meeting is summarized below. It is a lot of wordswordswords and is somewhat difficult to follow -- I highly suggest reading the rules below while simultaneously examining the attached PDFs. The summary below should make much more sense when looking at concrete examples. > > ----- > > The overall intent is: > > A. In MPI-4.0, expose "BigCount" functionality through language polymorphism in the C bindings and the mpi_f08 module (we are not updating mpif.h or the mpi module). > > B. C11 _Generic polymorphism kinda sucks, *and* we're in a transition period where not all C compilers are C11-capable. Hence, we're exposing up to *3* C bindings per MPI procedure to applications (including explicitly exposing the "_x" variant where relevant). > > C. Fortran polymorphism "just works" (skipping a longer explanation here -- ask Rolf/Puri if you're interested in the details), so there will only be up to *2* F08 bindings per MPI procedure. > > ----- > > For each binding in the main text of the document: > > 1. Show the "plain" MPI_Foo(...) C binding (e.g., as it appeared in MPI-3.1) > > 2. If the binding has count or displacement arguments: > 2a. Show a second MPI_Foo() C binding with count and displacement arguments as MPI_Count and MPI_Aint, respectively. > 2b. If MPI_Foo() DOES NOT HAVE a corresponding MPI_Foo_x() in MPI-3.1, show a third MPI_Foo_x(...) C binding with count/displacement as MPI_Count/MPI_Aint. > > 3. Show the "plain" MPI_Foo(...) F08 binding (e.g., as it appeared in MPI-3.1) > > 4. If the binding has count or displacement arguments: > 4a. Show a second MPI_Foo() F08 binding with count and displacement arguments as INTEGER(KIND=MPI_COUNT_KIND) and INTEGER(MPI_ADDRESS_KIND), respectively. > > 5. Show the "plain" F90 binding > > ----- > > References: > > - Slides we presented at the BigCount Virtual Meeting: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10D_ws5NYAOI8m6KZKb31s9HxiSSmc_k5C62… > > - Webex Recording of the BigCount Virtual Meeting: https://www.mpi-forum.org/virtual_meetings/ > > - Froozle MPI, a no-op MPI implementation showing a bindings implementation of BigCount: https://github.com/jsquyres/froozle-mpi > > If you have read all the way down to this point, comments and feedback are welcome. :-) > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] "BigCount" rendering in PDF
by Bangalore, Purushotham 30 Jul '19

30 Jul '19

Any reason why the function with MPI_Count appears first in the function index while it appears second in the chapter? Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: mpi-forum <mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> on behalf of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via mpi-forum <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 11:13:09 AM To: MPI Forum list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Cc: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> Subject: [Mpi-forum] "BigCount" rendering in PDF SHORT VERSION See the attached two PDFs for how "BigCount" will be rendered in the MPI-4.0 PDF (pt2pt chapter and pt2pt/external interfaces in Annex A). Comments / suggestions are welcome, but you may only make comments / suggestions if you have read all of the "MORE DETAIL" section, below. MORE DETAIL We have split the work of the "BigCount" WG into two parts: 1. Updating all the bindings throughout the entire MPI spec. This is further sub-divided into two parts: 1a. Updating the bindings in the chapters of the MPI spec. 1b. Updating the bindings listing in Annex A. 2. Updating text in various chapters (e.g., Terms&Conventions and Language Bindings) describing BigCount, language consequences, describing how the bindings appear in the rest of the doc, ...etc. We've incorporated all the feedback from the BigCount Virtual Meeting last week, and I'd like to share samples of how #1a and #1b will look in the MPI 4.0 PDF. Text for #2 will be read at the September meeting (stay tuned -- that text will be published according to the normal 2-week deadline, etc.). Attached are 2 documents: 1. The point-to-point chapter rendered in the new style. Look at the bindings for MPI_SEND and MPI_RECV, for example. 2. Annex A rendered in the new style (only some of the bindings have been updated so far -- such as pt2pt and external interfaces). If you are confused when looking at these PDFs (e.g., why are there up to 3 C bindings?), and/or if you weren't at the Virtual Meeting / didn't watch the Webex after the fact, the feedback we received from the Virtual Meeting is summarized below. It is a lot of wordswordswords and is somewhat difficult to follow -- I highly suggest reading the rules below while simultaneously examining the attached PDFs. The summary below should make much more sense when looking at concrete examples. ----- The overall intent is: A. In MPI-4.0, expose "BigCount" functionality through language polymorphism in the C bindings and the mpi_f08 module (we are not updating mpif.h or the mpi module). B. C11 _Generic polymorphism kinda sucks, *and* we're in a transition period where not all C compilers are C11-capable. Hence, we're exposing up to *3* C bindings per MPI procedure to applications (including explicitly exposing the "_x" variant where relevant). C. Fortran polymorphism "just works" (skipping a longer explanation here -- ask Rolf/Puri if you're interested in the details), so there will only be up to *2* F08 bindings per MPI procedure. ----- For each binding in the main text of the document: 1. Show the "plain" MPI_Foo(...) C binding (e.g., as it appeared in MPI-3.1) 2. If the binding has count or displacement arguments: 2a. Show a second MPI_Foo() C binding with count and displacement arguments as MPI_Count and MPI_Aint, respectively. 2b. If MPI_Foo() DOES NOT HAVE a corresponding MPI_Foo_x() in MPI-3.1, show a third MPI_Foo_x(...) C binding with count/displacement as MPI_Count/MPI_Aint. 3. Show the "plain" MPI_Foo(...) F08 binding (e.g., as it appeared in MPI-3.1) 4. If the binding has count or displacement arguments: 4a. Show a second MPI_Foo() F08 binding with count and displacement arguments as INTEGER(KIND=MPI_COUNT_KIND) and INTEGER(MPI_ADDRESS_KIND), respectively. 5. Show the "plain" F90 binding ----- References: - Slides we presented at the BigCount Virtual Meeting: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10D_ws5NYAOI8m6KZKb31s9HxiSSmc_k5C62… - Webex Recording of the BigCount Virtual Meeting: https://www.mpi-forum.org/virtual_meetings/ - Froozle MPI, a no-op MPI implementation showing a bindings implementation of BigCount: https://github.com/jsquyres/froozle-mpi If you have read all the way down to this point, comments and feedback are welcome. :-) -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com<mailto:[email protected]>

1 0

"BigCount" rendering in PDF
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 30 Jul '19

30 Jul '19

SHORT VERSION See the attached two PDFs for how "BigCount" will be rendered in the MPI-4.0 PDF (pt2pt chapter and pt2pt/external interfaces in Annex A). Comments / suggestions are welcome, but you may only make comments / suggestions if you have read all of the "MORE DETAIL" section, below. MORE DETAIL We have split the work of the "BigCount" WG into two parts: 1. Updating all the bindings throughout the entire MPI spec. This is further sub-divided into two parts: 1a. Updating the bindings in the chapters of the MPI spec. 1b. Updating the bindings listing in Annex A. 2. Updating text in various chapters (e.g., Terms&Conventions and Language Bindings) describing BigCount, language consequences, describing how the bindings appear in the rest of the doc, ...etc. We've incorporated all the feedback from the BigCount Virtual Meeting last week, and I'd like to share samples of how #1a and #1b will look in the MPI 4.0 PDF. Text for #2 will be read at the September meeting (stay tuned -- that text will be published according to the normal 2-week deadline, etc.). Attached are 2 documents: 1. The point-to-point chapter rendered in the new style. Look at the bindings for MPI_SEND and MPI_RECV, for example. 2. Annex A rendered in the new style (only some of the bindings have been updated so far -- such as pt2pt and external interfaces). If you are confused when looking at these PDFs (e.g., why are there up to 3 C bindings?), and/or if you weren't at the Virtual Meeting / didn't watch the Webex after the fact, the feedback we received from the Virtual Meeting is summarized below. It is a lot of wordswordswords and is somewhat difficult to follow -- I highly suggest reading the rules below while simultaneously examining the attached PDFs. The summary below should make much more sense when looking at concrete examples. ----- The overall intent is: A. In MPI-4.0, expose "BigCount" functionality through language polymorphism in the C bindings and the mpi_f08 module (we are not updating mpif.h or the mpi module). B. C11 _Generic polymorphism kinda sucks, *and* we're in a transition period where not all C compilers are C11-capable. Hence, we're exposing up to *3* C bindings per MPI procedure to applications (including explicitly exposing the "_x" variant where relevant). C. Fortran polymorphism "just works" (skipping a longer explanation here -- ask Rolf/Puri if you're interested in the details), so there will only be up to *2* F08 bindings per MPI procedure. ----- For each binding in the main text of the document: 1. Show the "plain" MPI_Foo(...) C binding (e.g., as it appeared in MPI-3.1) 2. If the binding has count or displacement arguments: 2a. Show a second MPI_Foo() C binding with count and displacement arguments as MPI_Count and MPI_Aint, respectively. 2b. If MPI_Foo() DOES NOT HAVE a corresponding MPI_Foo_x() in MPI-3.1, show a third MPI_Foo_x(...) C binding with count/displacement as MPI_Count/MPI_Aint. 3. Show the "plain" MPI_Foo(...) F08 binding (e.g., as it appeared in MPI-3.1) 4. If the binding has count or displacement arguments: 4a. Show a second MPI_Foo() F08 binding with count and displacement arguments as INTEGER(KIND=MPI_COUNT_KIND) and INTEGER(MPI_ADDRESS_KIND), respectively. 5. Show the "plain" F90 binding ----- References: - Slides we presented at the BigCount Virtual Meeting: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10D_ws5NYAOI8m6KZKb31s9HxiSSmc_k5C62… - Webex Recording of the BigCount Virtual Meeting: https://www.mpi-forum.org/virtual_meetings/ - Froozle MPI, a no-op MPI implementation showing a bindings implementation of BigCount: https://github.com/jsquyres/froozle-mpi If you have read all the way down to this point, comments and feedback are welcome. :-) -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com<mailto:[email protected]>

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Planning for the September Forum Meeting
by Guillaume Mercier 28 Jul '19

28 Jul '19

Hello Martin, A- we would like some WG time during the meeting. At least 2 hours (and probably more) would be great. B- the plan is to read again: - issue #132/PR #111 (MPI_Comm_split_type stuff) - issue #120/PR #98 (Topology aware Cartesian communicators). Guillaume On 7/23/19 4:00 PM, Martin Schulz via mpi-forum wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to get an early(er) start on planning the forum meeting in > September to make sure we allocate enough time to readings, which are > necessary/intended for MPI 4.0. A skeleton agenda is now on the web, but > I still have to fill in the details. For this I would like to > > A) ask all WG chairs to let me know if they would like WG time at the > Zürich meeting and how long > B) ask all WG chairs and/or other ticket proposers to send me any > intentions for readings and votes. > > The latter doesn’t have to be final, yet, and the text version to be > read/voted on must still be distributed at most 2 weeks before the > meeting, but it would help lay out the schedule. > > Thanks! > > Martin > > PS: As a note to all, please keep in mind that all our schedules for MPI > 4.0 are built on the idea of reaching quorum in Zürich - hence, I would > strongly encourage everyone to attend (or send a representative). Thanks! > > — > Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems > Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching > Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) > Email: schulzm(a)in.tum.de <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum >

1 0

Slides (and PDFs) for today's "Big Count" Forum Virtual Meeting
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 24 Jul '19

24 Jul '19

Forum members: Slides 12 and 15 from the "Big Count" presentation today have links to sample PDFs showing the different options for rendering the MPI function bindings both throughout the text and in Annex A. We're sending you these links so that you can view these PDFs on your own screens and compare / contrast the options. Here's a link to the slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10D_ws5NYAOI8m6KZKb31s9HxiSSmc_k5C62… -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0

MPI Forum Virtual Meeting WEDNESDAY / Topic: MPI Big Count
by Martin Schulz 23 Jul '19

23 Jul '19

Hi all, As a reminder, we have a virtual meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday) to discuss MPI Big Count. The call is scheduled for 10:00 AM Central US (for 2 hours) and all of the call in information can be linked from the top of the meetings page: https://www.mpi-forum.org/virtual_meetings/ <https://www.mpi-forum.org/virtual_meetings/> If you see a 404 GitHub page, it’s because you’re either not logged in or you don’t have access to the repository where we have to store the information. In the latter case, please send Wesley a message and he can help you get access. Thanks, Martin — Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) Email: schulzm(a)in.tum.de <mailto:[email protected]>

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Planning for the September Forum Meeting
by Joseph Schuchart 23 Jul '19

23 Jul '19

Hi Martin, I would like to read the Memory Alignment ticket (#121) again and hopefully get it to a vote. The RMA ordering ticket needs some more work from my side and I am not yet sure I will have enough time to work on it before the Zurich meeting. I will know more in 2 weeks :) Best Joseph On 7/23/19 4:00 PM, Martin Schulz via mpi-forum wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to get an early(er) start on planning the forum meeting in > September to make sure we allocate enough time to readings, which are > necessary/intended for MPI 4.0. A skeleton agenda is now on the web, but > I still have to fill in the details. For this I would like to > > A) ask all WG chairs to let me know if they would like WG time at the > Zürich meeting and how long > B) ask all WG chairs and/or other ticket proposers to send me any > intentions for readings and votes. > > The latter doesn’t have to be final, yet, and the text version to be > read/voted on must still be distributed at most 2 weeks before the > meeting, but it would help lay out the schedule. > > Thanks! > > Martin > > PS: As a note to all, please keep in mind that all our schedules for MPI > 4.0 are built on the idea of reaching quorum in Zürich - hence, I would > strongly encourage everyone to attend (or send a representative). Thanks! > > — > Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems > Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching > Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) > Email: schulzm(a)in.tum.de <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpi-forum >

1 0