If this is being moved to MPI-3, we should consider modifying the ticket to include functions we left behind for backward compatibility. For example: int MPI_Comm_spawn(const char*, /*const*/char*[], int, MPI_Info, int, MPI_Comm, MPI_Comm*, int []); int MPI_Comm_spawn_multiple(int, /*const*/char*[], /*const*/char**[], const int [],/*const*/MPI_Info [], int, MPI_Comm, MPI_Comm*, int []); -- Pavan On 06/02/2009 09:36 AM, Richard Treumann wrote:
Hi Bronis
To the best of my knowledge, none of the signatories involved in asking that Ticket 140 not become part of MPI 2.2 consider it inappropriate for consideration in MPI 3.0
This proposal generated real interest among Forum members and I see no reason for it to be withdrawn entirely.
Thank you Erez for agreeing to defer this to 3.0. It is a relief to a number of MPI implementors that if (or when) this becomes part of the MPI standard, we will have the lead time to do it properly and test it rigorously.
Dick Treumann
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
[email protected] wrote on 06/01/2009 06:28:29 PM:
[image removed]
Re: [Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140
Bronis R. de Supinski
to:
Main MPI Forum mailing list
06/01/2009 06:32 PM
Sent by:
Cc:
"MPI 2.2"
Please respond to "Bronis R. de Supinski", Main MPI Forum mailing list
Erez:
Please do not simply withdraw it. There are a substantial portion of us who you convinced this was a good idea and what I saw in the feedback was that some found that it was outside the scope of 2.2. I think some of those people still feel it is a good idea even if that is the case. I hope you will press for 3.0.
Bronis
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Erez Haba wrote:
With this feedback of my distinguish colleagues, I don't see any point of perusing this proposal and I will be withdrawing this ticket in the next mpi forum meeting.
Thanks, .Erez
From: [email protected] [mailto:mpi-22- [email protected]] On Behalf Of William Gropp Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:37 AM To: MPI 2.2 Cc: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140
This is an example of why we have two votes - to give everyone a chance to take a second look at the issues. I'll note that the 17-10 (counting no's and abstains together) is worrisome; while a majority vote is the rule, a good standard will make a compelling argument for each feature.
The process here would normally be to have a debate and then the second vote. However, for MPI 2.2, we have the additional requirements of limited scope of change to implementations - we didn't define what that meant precisely (and that is a good thing), but there is a strong argument that limited scope of change would require at least a majority of implementations to agree that the change is minor.
Bill
On May 27, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Erez Haba wrote:
Hi all, I'm not really sure how to respond to this email. I will just note that this proposal has passed 1st vote last September with the following results.
4. Vote topic: MPI-2.2 const for C bindings, 1st vote: YES:
17
NO:
4
ABSTAIN:
6
MISSED:
0
Result:
Ballot passed
http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2008/09/votes.php
since then we decided to postpone the 1st vote to add very few minor correction to ticket #46 (the original proposal) and thus created ticket #140.
I believe that all the points you mention below have been discussed in the forum meeting(s).
Thanks, .Erez
From: [email protected]<mailto:mpi-forum- [email protected]> [mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140
All -
The signatories of this letter represent the majority of MPI implementors participating in the MPI Forum. We are concerned that proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C bindings") has a number of issues which suggest delaying to MPI-3 would be appropriate.
In particular, the proposal:
- Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry the support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting consensus has not been reached. - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a "trivial" change and therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process. - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard text or to solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI application. - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization opportunities for implementation or application, but may constrain future implementation opportunities.
Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring proposal #140 to the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent assessing its impact.
Thank you,
- Cisco: Jeff Squires - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood - Sandia: Brian Barrett - IBM: Richard Treumann - QLogic: Avneesh Pant - UTenn: George Bosilca - HP: David George Solt - UHouston: Edgar Gabriel - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray - ORNL: Richard Graham - Sun: Terry Dontje - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf & Jesper Traeff
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 <ATT00001.txt>
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
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ mpi-22 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22
-- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji