Dear all, On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:28:05AM -0500, Torsten Hoefler wrote:

... MPI_REQUEST_FREE Please bring it up again if you think it needs more discussion!

It doesn't, all has been said...

...

p.50, line 20 (or elsewhere), add: "Completion of a particular nonblocking collective operations does \emph{not} imply completion of any other posted nonblocking collective (or send-receive) operations, whether they are posted before or after the operation in case." hmm, I think this clarification is unnecessary because similar things would apply to nonblocking point-to-point and are not mentioned there (and the semantics are clearly defined). We have Example 5.34 to make this clear, but I'd rather not introduce this to the introductory text.

I think it is a fairly important semantic issue, and should be said somewhere. The (good) example comes at the end of the chapter.

...

p.50, line 24-25: "cannot be defined clearly." -> "is not well-defined." I think that "cannot be defined" is stronger than "is not well-defined".

yes, that's why I suggest the slightly, perhaps, weaker text

...

p.50, line 48: "collective operations is required" -> "collective operation semantics is required" I don't understand this proposal and I think the current text is precise.

I didn't think so, will try to come up with another wording

...

p.53, line 37: "are identical as after a call" - bad Engish, should rather be: "are the same as after a call". fixed (twice)

...

I would strongly suggest using exactly the same phrase for all of the data moving collectives! This is not a document being read as a whole, so we don't need to fear "repetition". maybe, I think the wording is clear as it is and has been reviewed multiple times. Thus, it should be fine. Feel free to propose a unified wording that does not invalidate all previous reviews ;).

I don't think it has been reviewed multiple times... ;-) it's the sort of thing you just skip. The English (use of "identical") is in many cases not correct...

I'd propose to stay with the reviewed phrasing.

Maybe Bronis look it over? Again, the "identical" phrase is in my opinion bad (but you changed that).

...

p.68, line 21: does a race condition "cause" non-determinism, or is it the other way round? I think it's correct because it might match correctly, however, if the race is done in the wrong order, then it's wrong. The casual chain is here: programming mistake -> race condition -> nondeterminism

and that's not really what the caption says. I suggest a rewording, will try and come up with something

...

p. 68, line 26: move "outstanding" to "even if there is an outstanding nonblocking..." that's a matter of taste

yes

...

p. 69, after line 34: Would suggest an example 5.31 that shows that e.g. MPI_IAlltoall does not match MPI_Alltoall.

"Blocking and nonblocking collective operations do not match. The following is illegal:" added (this should be clear after Ex 5.29, but more examples can't harm)

exactly!

I will attach it to ticket #109 after the telecon.

great! Jesper