- mpiwg-abi - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [mpiwg-abi] Current proposal?
by Jeff Hammond 18 Jan '23

18 Jan '23

We are currently debating a variety of design issues on https://github.com/mpiwg-abi/abi-issues/issues. If you think it would be constructive, I can just propose what I think we should do without waiting for consensus. Jeff > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > To: "mpiwg-abi(a)lists.mpi-forum.org" <mpiwg-abi(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 16:48:41 +0000 > Subject: Current proposal? > JeffH -- > > Is there a location that contains your current ABI proposal that we can > all read? > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > -- Jeff Hammond jeff.science(a)gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/

1 0

Re: [mpiwg-abi] looking for some ABI guidance
by Zhou, Hui 09 Jan '23

09 Jan '23

We dived directly into the technical details (intptr_t vs void *). But first, excuse my ignorance, how do built-in constants, e.g. MPI_INT, work in OpenMPI? In MPICH, those are true constants. And it is a really nice feature that (at least) I appreciate. We can ask users to simply print the handle and deduce a lot of clues on the state of their program. But the appreciation may stem from the fact that I am not a debugger fan. I thought in the proposal of standardizing ABI, we are targeting true compile-time constants, is it correct? Now, if they are compile-time constants, directly casting it as a pointer would be something to frown upon. If we are not directly casting but going through conversions in the compatibility layer, then I don't see the differences from one side (intptr_t) to the other (pointer). Random question (in the form of bullets, sorry): * If we're talking about standardizing a compatibility layer, and * We're talking about using pointers for MPI handle types, and * Open MPI handles are pointers already, and * Per Hui's description, MPICH integer handles directly correlate to pointers under the covers, then * Why use (u)intptr_t? I.e., MPICH already uses pointers for the underlying MPI objects, and they're (assumedly) typed. Hence, it may not be much of a stretch to use typed pointers in the proposed compatibility layer, rather than schlupping everything into a (u)intptr_t. -- Hui

1 0

Current proposal?
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 09 Jan '23

09 Jan '23

JeffH -- Is there a location that contains your current ABI proposal that we can all read? -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com

1 0