Re: [Mpi-forum] Reserved MPI_ prefix & namespace in C and Fortran
On 2, I'm ok but I do want to emphasize that the original *intent* of the MPI Forum was to reserve the MPI and PMPI prefix for future versions of the standard - thus *any* limitation on what sort of entity that applies to violates the original *intent*. Yes, the text failed to make that clear, but there is no change or extension intended here. This should also be a cautionary tale about attempting to enumerate everything, particularly in a way that will apply in the future. 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 26, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:
Bill, you ask for two things (here the Fortran text, but C is the same):
Programs must not declare variables, parameters, or functions with names beginning with the prefix MPI_. To avoid conflicting with the profiling interface, programs should also avoid functions with the prefix PMPI_.
The first sentence, we substituted already by
Programs must not declare names, e.g., for variables, subroutines, functions, parameters, derived types, abstract interfaces, or modules, beginning with the prefix MPI_.
You ask in the second sentence for 1. Substitute "should" by "must" in the last line 2. Substitute "functions" by "name".
About 1.: Yes, agreed. Always must and should are used as synonyms in the scope of standards. To use the same words in both sentences is clarifying that there is no relevant difference in the meaning.
About 2.: I do not see that it is needed, i.e., that there is an inconsistency, and the MPI-1 Forum decided to make a clear difference between MPI - where all names must be restricted, - as we now do, and PMPI - where conflicts are only for routines because we do not have any PMPI name for other areas.
Therefore for me, the 2. topic would be out of the scope of this erratum. And I want to keep it as an erratum, because it should be done before we vote on MPI-3.0 and therefore automatically included in MPI-3.0.
Okay?
Rolf
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Gropp" <[email protected]> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 4:28:22 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Reserved MPI_ prefix & namespace in C and Fortran I would use "must" instead of "should", esp in reference to the PMPI interface. I'd also reserve all PMPI and MPI names, not just the function/subroutines for PMPI. The intent was always that users avoid these two prefixes for any use; anyone who used them was courting trouble.
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 26, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:
I updated the ticket 343 with the now hopefully final text for the terms chapter (after Bronis has moved the tools aspect to MPI-next), see https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/343 and the attached files.
I hope that now all can agree with this correction of the existing inconsisteny as detected in the public review and discussed in the previous emails.
-------------------------------- Latest summary of the necessary MPI-2.2 erratum in Sections 2.6.2 - 2.6.4:
C:
"Programs must not declare names (identifiers), e.g., for variables, functions, constants, types, or macros, beginning with the prefix MPI_."
Fortran:
"Programs must not declare names, e.g., for variables, subroutines, functions, parameters, derived types, abstract interfaces, or modules, beginning with the prefix MPI_.
and for Fortran also "subroutines and functions" instead of only "functions" in the sentence about PMPI_.
C++ (not visible in MPI-3.0 due to removal of C++):
"Programs must not declare names (identifiers), e.g., for variables, functions, constants, types, or macros, in the namespace MPI."
And change-log entry
Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 on pages 18 and 19, and MPI-2.2, Section 2.6.2 on page 17, lines 41-42, Section 2.6.3 on page 18, lines 15-16, and Section 2.6.4 on page 18, lines 40-41. This is an MPI-2 erratum: The scope for the reserved prefix MPI_ and the C++ namespace MPI was extended to any name. -------------------------------
Best regards Rolf
----- Original Message -----
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
I think we should defer the issue to MPI Next.
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:
Hello Bronis, Kathryn, Dave,
Do you agree with Martin's opinion and his suggested addition for the tools chapter? ...
-- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email [email protected] 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) _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
-- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email [email protected] 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) _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
participants (1)
-
William Gropp