March 2011 - Mpi3-bwcompat - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

New MPI_Count PDF
by unknown＠example.com 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

Bill fixed the latex error in short order. A better PDF (with the 2nd half of the doc not being entirely red text) is now here: http://www.open-mpi.org/~jsquyres/one-count-to-rule-them-all/ -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

MPI_Count Ticket 265 feedback
by unknown＠example.com 30 Mar '11

30 Mar '11

Page numbers are Acrobat page numbers, not document page numbers. Page9_at_19: ...count values, and that type is MPI_Count... Page9_at_29: confusion about 'type map' applying to memory only, not file view Page9_at_30: For backward compatibility, many MPI routines use int in C or INTEGER in Fortran as count arguments. Page24_at_9: MPI_COUNT should be MPI_Count Page91_at_11: "value of size to" size should be a different font. Page92_at_15: Add "The Functions MPI_TYPE_GET_EXTENT" Page94_at_33: Start sentence properly, not with 'true_lb' (Ticket0 for Adam) Page120_at_38: Use similar wording to previous "limits" wording might be better (more consistent) Need to mention overflow for MPI_GET_COUNT? One could use MPI_STATUS_SET_ELEMENTS_X to overflow MPI_GET_COUNT. In MPI Forum 3.0 draft 1 document: Page455_at_32 add MPI_COUNT as width = 8 in external32

1 0

MPI Timer feedback
by unknown＠example.com 28 Mar '11

28 Mar '11

Feedback on MPI Timer requests presentation: - MPI_Request_free is ambiguous in the standard. We should define specific requirement that MPI_Request_free actually frees timer requests, rather than leak or provide some other indeterminate behavior. - MPI_Timer_reset should take request by value, not ref, as it doesn't free the request handle. - Some folks suggested they would rather see new 'poll' functions that take a timeout as a parameter rather than as a timer request. This potentially avoids having to scan input requests looking for minimum time. However, it requires special handling for reporting timeouts. - Need text to prevent implementations ignoring MPI_Cancel. Text in standard about local operations must complete, leverage that.

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] bwcompat call today?
by unknown＠example.com 18 Mar '11

18 Mar '11

Oh ya -- Dave's on vacation this week, so we can't use his bridge. Use this instead: Please join me in a WebEx meeting: Password: 1111 https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?ED=2312058&UID=484033237 On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Terry and I are on the call, but no one else is there yet...? > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres_at_[hidden] > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list > Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

bwcompat call today?
by unknown＠example.com 18 Mar '11

18 Mar '11

Terry and I are on the call, but no one else is there yet...? -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group
by unknown＠example.com 15 Mar '11

15 Mar '11

On Mar 14, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > The thought on the call was that Quincey would add text about MPI_Offset (to this new section) when he does the ticket covering more IO things. Yup, I'm still planning to do that. Quincey > > Do we want to add the text about Offset now? > > REMINDER: We need to get this done TODAY to qualify for a formal reading at the Forum meeting. > > I attached section 2.5.8 with the changes I proposed -- **INCLUDING** the rationale section (but without text about Offset). > > Comments? > > > On Mar 13, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > >> Only open, as far as I can tell, is Rajeev's question about making MPI_Count at least as big as the biggest of {int,MPI_Aint, MPI_Offset}. We've covered the first two, but not MPI_Offset. >> >> -Fab > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres_at_[hidden] > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > <section-258-mpi-count.pdf>_______________________________________________ > Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list > Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group
by unknown＠example.com 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

The thought on the call was that Quincey would add text about MPI_Offset (to this new section) when he does the ticket covering more IO things. Do we want to add the text about Offset now? REMINDER: We need to get this done TODAY to qualify for a formal reading at the Forum meeting. I attached section 2.5.8 with the changes I proposed -- **INCLUDING** the rationale section (but without text about Offset). Comments? On Mar 13, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > Only open, as far as I can tell, is Rajeev's question about making MPI_Count at least as big as the biggest of {int,MPI_Aint, MPI_Offset}. We've covered the first two, but not MPI_Offset. > > -Fab -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ *

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group
by unknown＠example.com 13 Mar '11

13 Mar '11

Only open, as far as I can tell, is Rajeev's question about making MPI_Count at least as big as the biggest of {int,MPI_Aint, MPI_Offset}. We've covered the first two, but not MPI_Offset. -Fab -----Original Message----- From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:32 AM To: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG Cc: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group If we all like the text, sure - I'll make the latex changes. Sent from my phone. No type good. On Mar 13, 2011, at 2:22 PM, "Fab Tillier" <ftillier_at_[hidden]> wrote: > Jeff, I like your wording, looks good to me. Are you going to fix up the latex and generate new PDFs that we can send out? > > -Fab > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] > [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff > Squyres > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 7:21 AM > To: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group > > On Mar 11, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Solt, David George wrote: > >> 2.5.8 Last sentence change to: >> >> The size of the MPI_Count type is determined by the MPI >> implementation with the restriction that it must be minimally capable >> of encoding a C int and Fortran INTEGER and any value that may be stored in an MPI_Aint type. > > "...and any value that may be stored in a variable of type MPI_Aint." > >> Rational thingy: > > Rationale. Potatoes. :-) > >> MPI_Count is used to communicate both the number of elements in a datatype and the bounds of a datatype. >> The number of elements in a datatype is specified at creation time using a C int or Fortran INTEGER. The bounds >> may be specified using an MPI_Aint. > > This is good. I would change the wording slightly -- let's not use the verb "communicate" here: > > "MPI_Count explicitly specifies the number of elements in a datatype, and therefore implicitly specifies the bounds of that datatype. The number of elements in a datatype is specified at creation time using a C int or Fortran INTEGER. The extent of a datatype is expressed using an MPI_Aint. > > How's that? > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres_at_[hidden] > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group
by unknown＠example.com 13 Mar '11

13 Mar '11

If we all like the text, sure - I'll make the latex changes. Sent from my phone. No type good. On Mar 13, 2011, at 2:22 PM, "Fab Tillier" <ftillier_at_[hidden]> wrote: > Jeff, I like your wording, looks good to me. Are you going to fix up the latex and generate new PDFs that we can send out? > > -Fab > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 7:21 AM > To: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group > > On Mar 11, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Solt, David George wrote: > >> 2.5.8 Last sentence change to: >> >> The size of the MPI_Count type is determined by the MPI implementation >> with the restriction that it must be minimally capable of encoding a C >> int and Fortran INTEGER and any value that may be stored in an MPI_Aint type. > > "...and any value that may be stored in a variable of type MPI_Aint." > >> Rational thingy: > > Rationale. Potatoes. :-) > >> MPI_Count is used to communicate both the number of elements in a datatype and the bounds of a datatype. >> The number of elements in a datatype is specified at creation time using a C int or Fortran INTEGER. The bounds >> may be specified using an MPI_Aint. > > This is good. I would change the wording slightly -- let's not use the verb "communicate" here: > > "MPI_Count explicitly specifies the number of elements in a datatype, and therefore implicitly specifies the bounds of that datatype. The number of elements in a datatype is specified at creation time using a C int or Fortran INTEGER. The extent of a datatype is expressed using an MPI_Aint. > > How's that? > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres_at_[hidden] > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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] MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group
by unknown＠example.com 13 Mar '11

13 Mar '11

Jeff, I like your wording, looks good to me. Are you going to fix up the latex and generate new PDFs that we can send out? -Fab -----Original Message----- From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 7:21 AM To: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] MPI Backward Compatibility Working Group On Mar 11, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Solt, David George wrote: > 2.5.8 Last sentence change to: > > The size of the MPI_Count type is determined by the MPI implementation > with the restriction that it must be minimally capable of encoding a C > int and Fortran INTEGER and any value that may be stored in an MPI_Aint type. "...and any value that may be stored in a variable of type MPI_Aint." > Rational thingy: Rationale. Potatoes. :-) > MPI_Count is used to communicate both the number of elements in a datatype and the bounds of a datatype. > The number of elements in a datatype is specified at creation time using a C int or Fortran INTEGER. The bounds > may be specified using an MPI_Aint. This is good. I would change the wording slightly -- let's not use the verb "communicate" here: "MPI_Count explicitly specifies the number of elements in a datatype, and therefore implicitly specifies the bounds of that datatype. The number of elements in a datatype is specified at creation time using a C int or Fortran INTEGER. The extent of a datatype is expressed using an MPI_Aint. How's that? -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres_at_[hidden] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat

1 0