Hi Junchao,

Sorry for the delay. I've been at SC.

In the MPI_T return code Table (P589), there are 

Return Codes for Datatype Functions: MPI_T_ENUM_*

MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_INDEX    The enumeration index is invalid or has been deleted.

MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_ITEM      The item index queried is out of range (for MPI_T_ENUM_GET_ITEM only)

Why we used "enumeration index" here? Since in the standard, it is called a handle.

I think the text could better read "enumeration item index" since the index is for an item in the enumeration, not the enumeration itself.

And why designed MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_ITEM specially for MPI_T_ENUM_GET_ITEM?

I believe the intent was to differentiate between an index that is out of range and one that may have been deleted or invalidated for some reason, which would give more information than just one error code.

Do others feel this needs changing? If so, what do you think needs to happen? Possibly this:

In my view, there should be MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_ENUM, MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_INDEX respectively.

Or another suggestion:

return MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_INDEX for indices that are invalid or deleted and MPI_T_ERR_INVALID in the case that the index is out of range. If it's out of range, it's a misuse of the interface, so it fits with the intent of the new return code.

Kathryn

--Junchao Zhang

_______________________________________________
mpiwg-tools mailing list
mpiwg-tools@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-tools

______________________________________________________________
Kathryn Mohror, kathryn@llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/mohror1
CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA

_______________________________________________
mpiwg-tools mailing list
mpiwg-tools@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-tools