Hi Jeff, MPI 3.0 p78 lines 18-25 (section 3.9) forces the correct sequence and explicitly calls out the case of multiple concurrent threads. Also, a MPI_STARTALL call "has the same effect as" lots of MPI_START calls "in some arbitrary order" p78 lines 5-7 plus "the request should be inactive... becomes active once the call is made" p77 lines 28-29 so specifying a request more than once in the vector to MPI_STARTALL is pretty much guaranteed to break the correct sequence and the chronologically second implied MPI_START will be supplied with an active request, which is defined to be bad. I think that section 3.9 is fine and deals with all your points of possible ambiguity. Section 12 then incorrectly tries to un-write some of those rules by absent-mindedly neglecting the existence of persistent requests. Changing the text you quote (section 12.4.3), in particular "In MPI, a request can only be completed once" - *buzzz*, fail - is, IMHO, errata because the Standard is semantically (rather than just syntactically) wrong and needs to be corrected. Determining ticket-0 on this is a matter for the External Interfaces chapter committee. An errata could be brought by this WG because it is point-to-point functionality that is causing the conflict or by the Hybrid WG because it is all the fault of those pesky threads again. Cheers, Dan. On 16/01/2015 17:00, Jeff Hammond wrote:

I created https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/471 last night. Jim and Sayantan the overall concept is noncontroversial.

Is this ticket-0, an errata, or something that has to be read for MPI-4?

Thanks,

Jeff

-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.