You lost me there - in part, i am saying it is useless because there are almost zero cases in which it would be appropriate. How does that make it "a minor change"? Can you provide me the precise text you would add to the standard? Exactly how does the CANNOT_CONTINUE work? Under what conditions does an MPI process see a CANNOT_CONTINUE and what does it mean? Please look at the example again. The point was that there is nothing there that would justify a CANNOT_CONTINUE and MPI is still working correctly. Despite that, the behavior is a mess from the algorithm viewpoint after the error. 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 From: Darius Buntinas <[email protected]> To: "MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group" <[email protected]> Date: 09/22/2010 02:41 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Defining the state of MPI after an error Sent by: [email protected] That's why I feel that this is a minor change. As to your example, it's possible that failed collectives result in CANNOT_CONTINUE, but a send to a failed process maybe doesn't have to. You can still send to other processes. -d On Sep 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Richard Treumann wrote:

The situation of MPI state being totally trashed by an error that returns a return code barely exists. The case where it is subtly discombobulated is the norm.

_______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft