Can we build a list of these to see how many packages actually *will* do what you assert? (e.g., as opposed to software maintainers being entranced by the idea of possibly doing it) I would strongly prefer to hear actual software maintainers publicly saying "yes, I will do this" instead of having someone else speak for them. Not to be too untrusting, but there was a stellar example at the Dublin ABI meeting where person A said "trust me; I can speak for group XYZ", but later, group XYZ said exactly the opposite of what person A had previously asserted for them. On Sep 12, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Greg Lindahl wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:17:45PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
If there are not -- if the majority are in the "we QA with MPI's X, Y, and Z, and thou shallt not run with any other", then an ABI is not worthwhile.
We knew before we started that many ISVs had this opionion. But if they ever change their minds in the future, the ABI is useful to them. And when they go to test, the ABI saves them a recompile.
The early adopters of the ABI will not be ISVs. It will be non-commercial people who want to ship pre-compiled application binaries, and who don't do much testing of individual MPIs or platforms anyway. There are many free non-MPI scientific programs that distribute precompiled binaries. MPI app authors would like to do the same.
-- greg
_______________________________________________ mpi3-abi mailing list mpi3-abi_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi
-- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems