Hi Aurelien,> (1) Are the semantics for the MPI probe operations (probe, iprobe, mprobe) well defined? Including when MPI_ANY_SOURCE is used?Yes, they are exactly the same as for normal recv operations. We had a WG phone call issue on mprobe alone, sometime last september, to verify that it was not problematic.
>
We state that non-blocking operations must not raise an error when they are initiated. We may need an exception to this rule for MPI_Iprobe to state that it has MPI_Test semantics. An Iprobe could be polling with MPI_ANY_SOURCE and lead to deadlock if it does not return an error.
_______________________________________________> (2) For comm_shrink, what happens when the remote group in an intercommunicator becomes empty? Is it valid to get back an intercommunicator with an empty remote group?That’s a pretty bizarre case. It is to be noted that the semantic for the shrink is well defined: the outcome is the same as if the user had called split with colors set to MPI_UNDEFINED at all remote group processes. From the definition of SPLIT stated page 247, the well defined outcome is that MPI_COMM_NULL is returned when a color is used on only one side of the intercomm.
Ok, thanks! Just wanted to make sure that this was defined.> (3) In 15.2 (pg. 594:21), can we replace the sentence "always complete in a finite amount of time" with the simpler "eventually complete”?I believe the original formulation carries the argument more visibly by being pedantic; but if you feel strongly about it, I don't.
The wording isn't incorrect, this is just word smithing. Strong words "always" and "finite" imply something about when a thing will occur, when in fact the semantic is not any stronger than "eventually". "Eventually" is used for semantics like this in the RMA chapter.~Jim.
mpiwg-ft mailing list
mpiwg-ft@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft