On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 04:56:31PM -0800, Greg Bronevetsky wrote:

...

...

Having said that, I object to the text that explains the reasoning for removing MPI_Request_free on page 50 for exactly the reason above. We shouldn't have MPI_Request_free because its generally bad. yes, I agree. I just wanted to stay consistent with the current standard with the text, but I don't like it either. I think we can't say that Request_free is generally bad, thu I chose this phrasing. However, I'm very open to changes. Can you propose a better wording?

Not really. I think that we should bring up removing MPI_Request_free before the community as a whole during the next face-to-face meeting. If they agree to remove it, we'll have our wording.

There is already a ticket for MPI-2.2 to deprecate it. However, there was some discussion. We will discuss this again at the next meeting. Until then, I just leave the text as is. Please let me know if you have a proposal for better wording. Best, Torsten -- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Torsten Hoefler | Postdoctoral Researcher Open Systems Lab | Indiana University 150 S. Woodlawn Ave. | Bloomington, IN, 474045, USA Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608