Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for misreading the standard.
Jeff
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Rajeev Thakur <thakur(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> MPI_REDUCE_LOCAL is not the same as MPI_REDUCE on MPI_COMM_SELF. The latter just copies inbuf to outbuf without doing any op. Reduce_local performs an op between inbuf and inoutbuf. If inbuf is missing, it doesn't make sense to call Reduce_local.
>
> On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
>
>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/353 is trivial but
>> perhaps I am the only person that sees the point. Can the WG give a
>> thumbs up or down on proceeding?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Hammond
>> jeff.science(a)gmail.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpiwg-coll mailing list
>> mpiwg-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-coll
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-coll mailing list
> mpiwg-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-coll
--
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science(a)gmail.com
MPI_REDUCE_LOCAL is not the same as MPI_REDUCE on MPI_COMM_SELF. The latter just copies inbuf to outbuf without doing any op. Reduce_local performs an op between inbuf and inoutbuf. If inbuf is missing, it doesn't make sense to call Reduce_local.
On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/353 is trivial but
> perhaps I am the only person that sees the point. Can the WG give a
> thumbs up or down on proceeding?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> Jeff Hammond
> jeff.science(a)gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-coll mailing list
> mpiwg-coll(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-coll
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/353 is trivial but
perhaps I am the only person that sees the point. Can the WG give a
thumbs up or down on proceeding?
Thanks,
Jeff
--
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science(a)gmail.com
