Per the history therein,
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/369 passed the
first vote in Chicago in June. Why do you think it has been dropped?
I thought
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/359passed but there's no clear evidence of this on the ticket.
I previously updated
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi3-rma-agenda to
reflect my intended activities:
Draft Agenda for MPI-3 RMA Working Group: December 2014
#396 - RMA needs new assertions for passive-target epochs. Current
status (3/14): Add these assertions. Text needed.
#397 - extend the use of MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY to all windows. Current
status (3/14): Text proposed, straw vote 4/2/0.
#401 - MPI_IN_PLACE in MPI_Get_accumulate
#416 - MPI Accumulate operation restrictions
In particular, I will have a relatively large proposal related to
shared memory, which will be part of #397 (the scope of this ticket is
evolving).
Jeff
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:19 AM, William Gropp <
wgropp@illinois.edu> wrote:
I looked through all of the tickets and wrote a summary of the open issues, which I’ve attached. I propose the following:
Determine which of these issues can be resolved by email. A significant number can probably be closed with no further action.
For those requiring rework, determine if there is still interest in them, and if not, close them as well.
For the ones requiring discussion, assign someone to organize a position and discussion. We can schedule telecons to go over those issues. The first item in the list is certainly in this class.
Comments?
Bill
_______________________________________________
mpiwg-rma mailing list
mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma
--
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science@gmail.comhttp://jeffhammond.github.io/_______________________________________________
mpiwg-rma mailing list
mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.orghttp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma