Hi Jim,
Sorry, I have some problems with the interpretation of function MPI_Aint_index().
(*) What does MPI_Aint_index() return ?
A target displacement which can be used in RMA functions such as MPI Put/Get or
does it return an address such as MPI_Get_address () ?
(*) What is argument "base" ?
An address returned by MPI_Get_address() of any address or
a window base returned by
MPI_Win_get_attr(win, MPI_WIN_BASE, &base, &flag) ?
May "base" (as MPI_Aint) be transferred from a different process ?
Hubert
________________________________________
From: mpi3-rma-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mpi3-rma-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Jim Dinan [dinan(a)mcs.anl.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:08 PM
To: mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] Ticket for WG discussion
Hubert,
We have added a solution #3 to the ticket based on discussion in the
working group today. That's our current proposal. Could you take a
look and see if that will be Fortran compatible?
Thanks,
~Jim.
On 3/12/13 2:28 PM, Hubert Ritzdorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> concerning Ticket 349.
> (*) In Fortran, the displacement for dynamic windows may be signed
> since MPI_BOTTOM of Fortran is not (void *) NULL..
> (*) Fortran doesn't have unsigned integers, thus you cannot use
> a Fortran version of MPI_Disp for arithmetics (such as disp++).
> (*) MPI Displacements in general may be signed.
> They might be relative to any address.
>
>
> Therefore, I can't see that the Proposed Solution 2 solves the problem.
>
> Hubert
>
> ________________________________________
> From: mpi3-rma-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mpi3-rma-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Jim Dinan [dinan(a)mcs.anl.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:12 PM
> To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group
> Subject: [Mpi3-rma] Ticket for WG discussion
>
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to propose the following two tickets for discussion in
> today's WG meeting:
>
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/349
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/344
>
> #349 is a bugfix that definitely needs to be addressed. #344 is an
> "elegance of the interface" ticket where I would like to poll the WG to
> determine the level of support and determine if this should be pursued.
>
> I unfortunately need to duck out at 4pm today, so if possible, I propose
> that we discuss these at the beginning of the meeting.
>
> Thanks!
> ~Jim.
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
>
>
> Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/kHf7UuVmhqHGX2PQPOmvUu5zZAYN1MosNz2OH0bOQrlt… to report this email as spam.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
>
_______________________________________________
mpi3-rma mailing list
mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
Hubert,
We have added a solution #3 to the ticket based on discussion in the
working group today. That's our current proposal. Could you take a
look and see if that will be Fortran compatible?
Thanks,
~Jim.
On 3/12/13 2:28 PM, Hubert Ritzdorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> concerning Ticket 349.
> (*) In Fortran, the displacement for dynamic windows may be signed
> since MPI_BOTTOM of Fortran is not (void *) NULL..
> (*) Fortran doesn't have unsigned integers, thus you cannot use
> a Fortran version of MPI_Disp for arithmetics (such as disp++).
> (*) MPI Displacements in general may be signed.
> They might be relative to any address.
>
>
> Therefore, I can't see that the Proposed Solution 2 solves the problem.
>
> Hubert
>
> ________________________________________
> From: mpi3-rma-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mpi3-rma-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Jim Dinan [dinan(a)mcs.anl.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:12 PM
> To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group
> Subject: [Mpi3-rma] Ticket for WG discussion
>
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to propose the following two tickets for discussion in
> today's WG meeting:
>
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/349
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/344
>
> #349 is a bugfix that definitely needs to be addressed. #344 is an
> "elegance of the interface" ticket where I would like to poll the WG to
> determine the level of support and determine if this should be pursued.
>
> I unfortunately need to duck out at 4pm today, so if possible, I propose
> that we discuss these at the beginning of the meeting.
>
> Thanks!
> ~Jim.
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
>
>
> Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/kHf7UuVmhqHGX2PQPOmvUu5zZAYN1MosNz2OH0bOQrlt… to report this email as spam.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
>
Hi,
concerning Ticket 349.
(*) In Fortran, the displacement for dynamic windows may be signed
since MPI_BOTTOM of Fortran is not (void *) NULL..
(*) Fortran doesn't have unsigned integers, thus you cannot use
a Fortran version of MPI_Disp for arithmetics (such as disp++).
(*) MPI Displacements in general may be signed.
They might be relative to any address.
Therefore, I can't see that the Proposed Solution 2 solves the problem.
Hubert
________________________________________
From: mpi3-rma-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mpi3-rma-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Jim Dinan [dinan(a)mcs.anl.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:12 PM
To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group
Subject: [Mpi3-rma] Ticket for WG discussion
Hi All,
I would like to propose the following two tickets for discussion in
today's WG meeting:
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/349https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/344
#349 is a bugfix that definitely needs to be addressed. #344 is an
"elegance of the interface" ticket where I would like to poll the WG to
determine the level of support and determine if this should be pursued.
I unfortunately need to duck out at 4pm today, so if possible, I propose
that we discuss these at the beginning of the meeting.
Thanks!
~Jim.
_______________________________________________
mpi3-rma mailing list
mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/kHf7UuVmhqHGX2PQPOmvUu5zZAYN1MosNz2OH0bOQrlt… to report this email as spam.
Hi All,
I would like to propose the following two tickets for discussion in
today's WG meeting:
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/349https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/344
#349 is a bugfix that definitely needs to be addressed. #344 is an
"elegance of the interface" ticket where I would like to poll the WG to
determine the level of support and determine if this should be pursued.
I unfortunately need to duck out at 4pm today, so if possible, I propose
that we discuss these at the beginning of the meeting.
Thanks!
~Jim.
Thanks. I have reviewed these tickets and added my comments. I have also added a new ticket
#367 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA Typo in function name
I assume we will discuss all these tickets in the RMA working group on Tuesday afternoon before the vote on Wednesday.
Rajeev
On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jim Dinan wrote:
> Last call -- if there are any additional errata items from the RMA working group, please send them out ASAP.
>
> RMA WG members -- please review the following tickets, which we are putting forward for an errata vote at the next meeting:
>
> #347 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA Info appendices
> #348 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA Example 11.21
> #350 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA origin argument ignored with MPI_NO_OP
> #355 MPI 3.0 Errata: Get_accumulate Datatype Clarification
> #359 MPI 3.0 Errata: Update RMA progress rationale
> #361 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA Target Buffer Wordsmithing
> #362 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA same_size info key
>
> Cheers,
> ~Jim.
>
> On 2/20/13 10:00 AM, Jim Dinan wrote:
>> Here is another errata ticket for review:
>>
>> #362 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA same_size info key
>>
>> ~Jim.
>>
>> On 2/20/13 9:38 AM, Jim Dinan wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Here is the list of RMA errata tickets I have assembled for the upcoming
>>> meeting. Please let me know if there are any tickets missing from the
>>> list and review the proposed changes:
>>>
>>> #347 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA Info appendices
>>> #348 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA Example 11.21
>>> #350 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA origin argument ignored with MPI_NO_OP
>>> #355 MPI 3.0 Errata: Get_accumulate Datatype Clarification
>>> #359 MPI 3.0 Errata: Update RMA progress rationale
>>> #361 MPI 3.0 Errata: RMA Target Buffer Wordsmithing
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> ~Jim.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpi3-rma mailing list
>>> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpi3-rma mailing list
>> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
