I know there have been suggestions that binary compatibility could be expendable. I am not aware of any decision that it is "not a goal"

I remind you all that this survey did not use a good sampling technique. For example, I suspect most people who solve problems with a code that happens to be written in MPI want their code to just keep working and never saw the survey.


Dick Treumann - MPI Team
IBM Systems & Technology Group
Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363


Inactive hide details for Greg Bronevetsky ---03/24/2010 11:46:14 AM---At 07:13 AM 3/24/2010, Richard Treumann wrote: >I just tGreg Bronevetsky ---03/24/2010 11:46:14 AM---At 07:13 AM 3/24/2010, Richard Treumann wrote: >I just took a look at the piggy back proposal. I do


From:
Greg Bronevetsky <bronevetsky1@llnl.gov>

To:
"MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group" <mpi3-ft@lists.mpi-forum.org>, "MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group" <mpi3-ft@lists.mpi-forum.org>

Cc:
Robert Blackmore/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS

Date:
03/24/2010 11:46 AM

Subject:
Re: [Mpi3-ft] FT Working Group Teleconf (today)

Sent by:
mpi3-ft-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org





I don't believe that binary compatibility is a goal for MPI 3 and in
the survey users rated it quite low on their priority list.


Greg Bronevetsky
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
(925) 424-5756
bronevetsky@llnl.gov
http://greg.bronevetsky.com 

_______________________________________________
mpi3-ft mailing list
mpi3-ft@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft