If that’s the solution, that’s fine. The other option is to hold MPI 4.0 if this is a showstopper. I’m not that familiar with the problem so I was trying to figure out which side this is on. Thanks, Wes
On Feb 3, 2021, at 9:18 AM, Martin Schulz <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Wesley,
Sorry, we overlapped - based on the discussion we had on Monday, there is no way we can get this into MPI 4.0 the "right" way. So, the idea to put a stop-gap measure in that for now disallows certain parts, and that could be done as an errata. Hence, it would be nice to get this cleaned and ready, but I don't think we have a huge rush here.
Martin
-- Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) Email: [email protected]
On 03.02.21, 16:16, "Bland, Wesley" <[email protected]> wrote:
Is this something that needs to be in MPI 4.0? If so, we need to at least decide what we want to do along that path. If this can be fixed by an errata later, that’s fine.
Thanks, Wes
On Feb 3, 2021, at 9:11 AM, Pritchard Jr., Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Martin,
I mulled this over some more and think we need to discuss the implications here further within the WG before presenting something to the forum. So let's hold off bringing this topic up at today's MPI forum.
Howard
On 2/2/21, 8:28 AM, "Schulz, Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Howard,
Based on the discussion yesterday in the WG, should we mention this at the whole forum tomorrow and possible suggest the one sentence errata that Spawn is only of for the WPM, or is this too early?
Thanks,
Martin
-- Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) Email: [email protected]