If you agree with Boehm’s article in the strongest form, then you can maintain source code portability by avoiding the use of features that are not well defined in the source language - i.e., the use of shared memory.

Bill, please read my example. It is not using shared memory. If we agree with Boehm's article, then it has direct implication to normal nonblocking pt-to-pt as soon as the MPI library uses internally a progress thread. This should be allowed. Or in other words, not only Fortran is a special case. With C, we Need not to talk to the C standardization body. Similar to Fortran TS29113, the C standardization body already did what MPI needs. As soon as we say, MPI has a C binding, and allow nonblocking pt-to-pt and allow parallel progress engines, we should say that this requires the C11 memory model, i.e., the user must not modify ist optimization in a way that the C11 Memory model is no longer guaranteed. MPI provides a C binding, C does not provide an MPI binding. Therefore, it is our job. Otherwise MPI does not provide source code portability. Rolf ----- Original Message -----

From: "William Gropp" <[email protected]> To: "MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:43:39 PM Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] Memory model and source code portability

Not at all.  It just isn’t our place to talk about other standards.  Fortran was a slightly different case because of the discussions between members of the MPI Forum and the Fortran standards committee.  We don’t have that option with C, and I don’t think we ever will, since MPI programs are not an important part of the use of C.

If you agree with Boehm’s article in the strongest form, then you can maintain source code portability by avoiding the use of features that are not well defined in the source language - i.e., the use of shared memory.  The current straw vote addresses something at (a) is within the definitions under control of the MPI Forum and (b) allows users that are willing to do what virtually everyone currently using threads and shared memory does - rely on the compiler and processing environment to implement something other than the standard language.  But that latter case does not belong in a standard document.

Bill

On Sep 30, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner < [email protected] > wrote:

For me it looks like that you give up with the important goal that the MPI standard should provide source code portability.

_______________________________________________ mpiwg-rma mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

-- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email [email protected] High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307)