Hi Aurélien, My concern with changing this text to refer to a different communicator was that the user might have to set an error handler on MPI_COMM_WORLD in addition to the one on that (sub)communicator - to avoid MPI just aborting all MPI processes in MCW at the first sign of trouble. The first sentence says “high quality implementation should” so maybe there is no reason to worry here. We will drop this item from our to-do list. Thanks! Cheers, Dan. — Dr Daniel Holmes PhD Applications Consultant in HPC Research [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Phone: +44 (0) 131 651 3465 Mobile: +44 (0) 7940 524 088 Address: Room 2.09, Bayes Centre, 47 Potterrow, Central Area, Edinburgh, EH8 9BT — The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. — On 25 Jun 2019, at 19:33, Aurelien Bouteiller via mpiwg-ft <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It does not appear to me that any change is necessary. The only part about MPI_COMM_WORLD is in an 'as an example' clause. That being said, substituting MPI_COMM_WORLD with some generic 'communicator comm' would also work. Aurelien On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 AM Pritchard Jr., Howard via mpiwg-ft <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello MPI FTer’s, The Sessions WG could use some help/suggestions about how to adjust the following advice to implementors that accompanies the definition of MPI_Abort: \begin{implementors} After aborting a subset of processes, a high quality implementation should be able to provide error handling for communicators, windows, and files involving both aborted and non-aborted processes. As an example, if the user changes the error handler for \const{MPI\_COMM\_WORLD} to \const{MPI\_ERRORS\_RETURN} or a custom error handler, when a subset of \const{MPI\_COMM\_WORLD} is aborted, the remaining processes in \const{MPI\_COMM\_WORLD} should be able to continue communicating with each other and receive appropriate error codes when attempting communication with an aborted process. \end{implementors} We would like to generalize this advice to implementors to the case where MPI_COMM_WORLD isn’t a valid communicator, i.e. when an application is using the Sessions model. We think that there would need to be some reworking of the existing text to cover the sessions use case. Since the FT group has worked quite a bit on this text, we’d defer to your group for suggestions on how to generalize this text to cover the sessions use case. Thanks very much for any help, Howard -- Howard Pritchard HPC-ENV Los Alamos National Laboratory _______________________________________________ mpiwg-ft mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-ft _______________________________________________ mpiwg-ft mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-ft