Re: [Mpi-forum] Reserved MPI_ prefix & namespace in C and Fortran
Hi Bronis, The suggested change seems fine to me. Kathryn On 8/25/2012 9:29 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
Martin, Dave and Kathryn:
Do you agree with Rolf's suggested addition for the tools chapter? I am ambivalent but will make the change and send it to Rich if you do.
Bronis
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:
Okay, we should refer in both directions:
Add additional the sentence after MPI-3.0 Draft 2, page 19 line 16 (MPI-2.2 p18:17):
The MPI_ prefix reservation is relaxed when the profiling interface is used, see Section 14.2.2 on page 558 for details.
Same sentence for Fortran after MPI-3.0 Draft 2 p18:42 / MPI-2.2 p17:44. For C++, the following is needed after MPI-2.2 p18:41:
The MPI namespace reservation is relaxed when the profiling interface is used, see Section 14.2.2 on page 558 for details.
And:
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:
Typically, the profiling interface is used by implementing a new application or profiling function that has the same name as an MPI routine and internally calls the corresponding PMPI routine; this is an exception to the name prefix reservation rules in Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 on pages 18 and 19.
Good so?
Rolf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <[email protected]> To: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <[email protected]> Cc: "Martin Schulz" <[email protected]>, "Dave Goodell" <[email protected]>, "Kathryn Mohror" <[email protected]>, "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:39:53 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Reserved MPI_ prefix & namespace in C and Fortran I agree with Bill that the right solution is a forward reference at the point the restriction is defined. It will be lost if we bury it in the tools chapter.
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:
Bronis, Martin, Dave, Kathryn, and all tools people,
Yes, we should also solve this 2nd inconsistency about defining MPI_Xxxx with real MPI-names when writing a tools layer, which is inconsistent with the prefix reservation in Sect. 2.6.2-2.6.4 with the original wording and also with the new wording below.
Here, I would propose to relax the prefix reservation defined in Sections 2.6.2 - 2.6.4 by a sentence in the tools chapter that refers to Sect. 2.6.2-2.6.4.
Proposed solution (please take it a s a first draft):
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:
Typically, the profiling interface is used by implementing a new application or profiling function that has the same name as an MPI routine and internally calls the corresponding PMPI routine; this is an exception to the name prefix reservation rules in Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 on pages 18 and 19.
Because this is specific to the profiling layer, I would not stress the wording in the Terms chapter. The right position is really the tools chapter.
You, as the tools group may find a better wording and fine grained position of this sentence. Important is, that this sentence only solves the existing inconsistency, because this is the scope of this erratum.
Okay? Better proposals? Comments?
----------------------------------- Here again the latest version of the text 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++
"Programs must not declare names (identifiers), e.g., for variables, functions, constants, types, or macros, in the namespace MPI."
Best regards Rolf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <[email protected]> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 2:34:38 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Reserved MPI_ prefix & namespace in C and Fortran 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
-- 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)
-- 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)
_____________________________________________________________________ Kathryn Mohror, [email protected], http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1 CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
participants (1)
-
Kathryn Mohror