Jeff, Ralph was not aware of the background of the ABI effort (he is now) when you spoke to him, and that this is a desired capability from the LANL user community. As for committing resources, that's tbd. We may be able to put some effort into the proof of concept morph layer we discussed in Dublin. I suspect Ralph was referring to mods to OpenMPI internals to comply with whatever becomes the ABI spec. Ralph can certainly speak for LANL in that regard. I can imagine that could be a big effort and I understand the sensitivities. As this ABI thing is getting pretty heated, I want to put LANL participation in perspective. When we polled LANL users prior to the start of the forum several user items mapped nicely into the ABI effort. LANL did not initiate this effort but supports it as it addresses several of our user requests, so we joined the working group. The group requested a somewhat impartial third party organization (i.e. not an implementor) to lead the group. We offered to serve as WG lead as a means to get better engaged in the forum and make a contribution. It would be incorrect to say that LANL is "driving" this effort. Our role is more sheparding or facilitating. As you can imagine, LANL is a big place and communication is often less than perfect :>) Jeff At 10:58 AM 9/12/2008, Jeff Squyres wrote:

I told the group in Dublin that I would check with the Open MPI community to see who wanted to work on the Linux side of the 6- function ABI proof of concept with our colleagues at Intel MPI.

Unfortunately, it seems like no one is interested or has the resources to commit. :-(

I got feedback through the LANL Open MPI rep that LANL won't be committing resources to this effort, either, but perhaps Jeff Brown can double check this (I know there are many more groups at LANL than just the team with the Open MPI developer).

-- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

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