February 2010 - Mpi3-bwcompat - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Notes from last meeting + draft of standard text
by unknown＠example.com 09 Feb '10

09 Feb '10

I believe that is a mistake on my part. Yes, for this proposal I believe the intent is to require it to be 64-bit. I will update. Dave -----Original Message----- From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Rajeev Thakur Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:48 PM To: 'MPI-3 backwards compatability WG' Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Notes from last meeting + draft of standard text So MPI_Count is not required to 64-bit? Rjaeev > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] > [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of > Solt, David George > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:31 AM > To: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG > Subject: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Notes from last meeting + draft of > standard text > > I added a few notes to the meeting note page based on our > meeting last week. I also put forth a rough draft of our > explanation of versioning and an introduction to the > MPI_Count concept. > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/DraftMpiCountText > > I plan to add a presentation of the associated MPI datatype > for MPI_Count later this week. Feel free to update, modify, > criticize, praise, etc, etc. > > I also added a placeholder on the main page for our > recommendations to authors, but have not created the link > yet. If anyone wants to beat me to it, feel free to have at > it. Otherwise I will take a stab at it later in the week. > > Thanks, > Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list > Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat > _______________________________________________ Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Notes from last meeting + draft of standard text
by unknown＠example.com 09 Feb '10

09 Feb '10

So MPI_Count is not required to 64-bit? Rjaeev > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] > [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of > Solt, David George > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:31 AM > To: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG > Subject: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Notes from last meeting + draft of > standard text > > I added a few notes to the meeting note page based on our > meeting last week. I also put forth a rough draft of our > explanation of versioning and an introduction to the > MPI_Count concept. > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/DraftMpiCountText > > I plan to add a presentation of the associated MPI datatype > for MPI_Count later this week. Feel free to update, modify, > criticize, praise, etc, etc. > > I also added a placeholder on the main page for our > recommendations to authors, but have not created the link > yet. If anyone wants to beat me to it, feel free to have at > it. Otherwise I will take a stab at it later in the week. > > Thanks, > Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list > Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat >

1 0

Notes from last meeting + draft of standard text
by unknown＠example.com 09 Feb '10

09 Feb '10

I added a few notes to the meeting note page based on our meeting last week. I also put forth a rough draft of our explanation of versioning and an introduction to the MPI_Count concept. https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/DraftMpiCountText I plan to add a presentation of the associated MPI datatype for MPI_Count later this week. Feel free to update, modify, criticize, praise, etc, etc. I also added a placeholder on the main page for our recommendations to authors, but have not created the link yet. If anyone wants to beat me to it, feel free to have at it. Otherwise I will take a stab at it later in the week. Thanks, Dave

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Notes from ATL Forum meeting
by unknown＠example.com 05 Feb '10

05 Feb '10

On Jan 22, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > * What to do about the proposed MPI-3 explicit Fortran bindings (the > so-called "F03 bindings")? We could use function overloading and > forego the suffix approach that is necessary in C. But this was > deemed to be a bad idea -- it seemed better to keep function name > parity with C. So have both an MPI_File_write with int count and > MPI_File_writeL with MPI_Count count in the "F03" bindings. One more point here: there should be no "integer" version of MPI_FILE_WRITE in the F03 bindings because they're new. This follows the same precedent of "no int versions of non-blocking collectives". There should only be MPI_FILE_WRITE<suffix> in the F03 bindings that takes an argument of the MPI_COUNT variety (exact type tbd; probably a KIND sort of thing). -- Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> Cisco.com - http://www.cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

ABI compat list from Intel?
by unknown＠example.com 05 Feb '10

05 Feb '10

Alexander -- I seem to recall you mentioning that you had a list of 10-12 items that affect ABI from the MPI-2.x series and/or MPI-3 proposals. Did you ever share that list with the group? -- Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> Cisco.com - http://www.cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0