13 Mar
2014
13 Mar
'14
2:52 p.m.
On Mar 13, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Jeff Hammond <[email protected]> wrote:
If we thought it was a mistake in MPI-2 to disallow it, wouldn't we have tried to relax it in MPI-3? Brian had commented before that we might have been confused when defining same_op_no_op and really meant same_op_no_op_replace, which is a perfectly reasonable default semantic.
It was not disallowed in MPI-2. I meant that we made a mistake in MPI-3 to disallow it since that is not backward compatible. IMO, we should have kept the same semantics as MPI-2, but allowed the user to relax it with info arguments. — Pavan