Yes, it's time to put some cycles toward this. Let's start populating the matrix and have a telecon toward the end of next week. I'll schedule a WG working session at the meeting. I'll take a look at OpenMPI and LAMPI, the two primary MPI implementations we use at LANL, and post to the wiki by the end of the week. Others, please do the same for your MPI implementation (especially the vendors). Overlap is OK. I'll send out specifics on the telecon. Let's shoot for Thursday April 24, 9:00 A.M. MST. Jeff At 09:51 AM 4/16/2008, Narasimhan, Kannan wrote:

Folks,

Are we planning on a WG update to report at the April 28-30 Forum meeting? We have started the process of identifying the mpi.h differences, but I dont think we have synthesized the data yet, or come to any conclusions/next steps... Or did I miss something here?

Thanx! Kannan

-----Original Message----- From: mpi3-abi-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-abi-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Edric Ellis Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:18 AM To: MPI 3.0 ABI working group Subject: Re: [Mpi3-abi] Meeting notes from 10th March

I'm not sure how best to express this, but there are a couple of things that occur to me that might be important:

1. The size of the handle types (cf. size of a pointer perhaps?)

2. should we add some sort of table describing the current situation as to how applications pick up the value of e.g. MPI_COMM_WORLD? E.g. MPICH2 uses "#define MPI_COMM_WORLD 0x44000000", so that value is burned into the binary; whereas OpenMPI uses extern pointers - i.e. ompi_mpi_comm_world is in the initialized data section of libmpi.so, and the value resolved at (dynamic) link time.

Cheers,

Edric.

...

-----Original Message----- From: mpi3-abi-bounces_at_[hidden] [<mailto:mpi3-abi->mailto:mpi3-abi- bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Brown Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:11 PM To: MPI 3.0 ABI working group; mpi3-abi_at_[hidden] Subject: Re: [Mpi3-abi] Meeting notes from 10th March

I propose a way we can make progress ...

Let's start populating a matrix (excel spreadsheet) with a column for each MPI implementation, and rows for the various MPI datatypes, constants, etc. where the internal implementations varys. I'll kick it off for OpenMPI and send out.

The last column of the matrix can be "ABI" where we propose a common approach across the implementations.

A couple of driving principles: 1. the ABI solution shouldn't negatively impact quality of implementation 2. minimize platform specific solutions

I'd like to see if we can produce a single ABI that spans platforms.

comments?

Jeff

_______________________________________________ mpi3-abi mailing list mpi3-abi_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi

_______________________________________________ mpi3-abi mailing list mpi3-abi_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi

_______________________________________________ mpi3-abi mailing list mpi3-abi_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi