On Aug 26 2012, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:

Hello Bronis, Kathryn, Dave,

Do you agree with Martin's opinion and his suggested addition for the tools chapter?

Martin's proposal ----------------------

...

...

...

...

...

Add a new sentence after MPI-2.2, Chapter 14 "Profiling", Sect. 14.2 "Discussion", page 454, line 17, respectively, after MPI-3.0 Draft 2, Section 14.2 "Profiling", Sect. 14.2.2 "Discussion", page 558, line 34/35:

...

"Tools providing functionality by intercepting routines through the MPI Profiling Interface must ensure that the semantics implemented by the intercepting functions fully conforms to the specification of the intercepted call."

---

While it's obviously the intent, spelling it out would help when trying to get a particularly bone-headed developer to fix his code. That relates to one of William Gropp's points. The critical aspect for normal use and implementation is that the intent is both crystal clear and precise enough to allow of only one interpretation. Where legalese is needed is for arguing with a developer (whether vendor, user or other) who is trying to find some excuse for not fixing a bug. In my experience, this aspect rarely triggers that situation, so all that is critically needed is that the intent be made unambiguous. The original proposal looks pretty solid in that respect, and this does not conflict. Whether it's needed is a matter of opinion. Regards, Nick Maclaren.