I am still not convinced we need this, but if we find the right language I am not opposed to it. Not sure, how we can write this the right way. This gets fuzzy very easily. Do you have a suggestion? Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, [email protected], http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA On 2/3/15, 8:37 AM, "Marc-Andre Hermanns" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear all,

I just got a chance to talk to Rolf on this ticket: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/358

The reason for this ticket was that in ticket 453 (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/453), which passed as 3.0 errata, it is now explicitly allowed to declare functions in the MPI_ namespace, as long as the user wants to make use of the profiling interface.

The question now is, whether we should have a clarifying sentence in the profiling chapter to tell users of the interface not to tamper with the existing semantics of specific calls.

Rolf understood that the current wording in the ticket may be too ristrictive, as it remains unclear what 'fully conforms' still allows. His suggestion was maybe a less restrictive wording, where tools like MPIEcho are still allowed.

Cheers, Marc-Andre -- Marc-Andre Hermanns Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, High Performance Computing (JARA-HPC) German Research School for Simulation Sciences GmbH

Schinkelstrasse 2 52062 Aachen Germany

Phone: +49 241 80 99753 Fax: +49 241 80 6 99753 www.grs-sim.de/parallel email: [email protected]