Good point - but the fix there is to mention this case and provide a forward reference. As Nick notes, the intent here is clear - reserve all names that the Forum might use for future expansion of MPI. Trying to be overly precise about what that means is error prone and accomplishes nothing - users can write programs without the ability to use MPI_ or PMPI_ (except for the profiling interface exception) as the beginning of a name. Bill William Gropp Director, Parallel Computing Institute Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign On Aug 25, 2012, at 7:34 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
So, while we are debating whether the wording is sufficient, we are overlooking a far more important error in the restriction. It is simply wrong. The standard is not consistent.
Specifically, when one uses the MPI profiling interface, the mechanism is precisely to declare functions that begin with MPI_. So the intent of the standard is that we are supposed to violate that restriction. This issue has nagged at me in the past but I have simply ignored it. However, I would oppose increasing the scope of the restriction without fixing the real inconsistency. _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum