Is s/0/false/g s/1/true/g (where relevant, of course) in the Tools chapter more than a ticket-0 change? On Aug 14, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Mohror, Kathryn <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jeff,

I see your point too. How do you propose to fix it? Make it clearer why we don't follow the same convention? Or change it to follow the rest of the standard? (The latter doesn't seem like ticket 0 to me.)

-- Kathryn

Sent with Good (www.good.com)

-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:28 AM Pacific Standard Time To: MPI Tool WG Subject: Re: [mpiwg-tools] Too strict for flags in MPI_T_pvar_get_info?

I think the parts about the C convention/ignoring Fortran is fine.

But I think Junchao is raising the small-but-valid point that elsewhere in the doc, we say true/false for such things, but here in the tools chapter, we're saying 1/0. So I'd say that this is a valid "consistency" kind of issue.

I'd further opine that this is a ticket 0 kind of change, and the chapter author should just make the change.

On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Kathryn Mohror <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi Junchao,

Thanks as always for your sharp eyes. I think though in this case that Nathan is correct. Since we only define a C interface for MPI_T and try to ignore Fortran altogether, it is okay to use the C convention for true and false.

Kathryn _________________________________________________________________ Kathryn Mohror, [email protected], http://scalability.llnl.gov/ Scalability Team @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA

On 8/14/14, 9:49 AM, "Nathan Hjelm" <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Junchao Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:

It is a minor issue. In the Standard, the description for int MPI_T_pvar_get_info(..., int *readonly, int *continuous, int *atomic) says: Upon return, the argument readonly is set to zero if the variable can be written or reset by the user. It is set to one if the variable can only be read. (Same thing happens to continuous and atomic.)

The description mandates an implementation must return 1 as TRUE, which does not follow C's convention. Other parts of MPI use true/false instead of 1/0 in description. Section 2.6.3 make it clear that true means non-zero.

How does that not follow C¹s convention? C mandates that the evaluation of a boolean operator (<, >, !, etc) MUST evaluate to either 0 or 1. Returning 0/1 here makes perfect sense.

Other parts of MPI probably use true/false because fortran logicals do not use 0/1 for false/true.

-Nathan Hjelm

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

-- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

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

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

-- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/