On Jul 1, 2013, at 1:24 PM, "David Goodell (dgoodell)" <[email protected]> wrote:

----8<----

...

� Jeff also brings up the idea of a callback (or some kind of MPI_T notification) to know when an MPI object is destroyed (per email conversation w/ Jeff, Kathryn, Martin). � Marc-Andre will think about whether it will be useful for any tools to know when MPI objects get destroyed. � Marc-Andre will also think about whether it would be useful for there to be an MPI_T mechanism to get some kind of unique ID for an MPI object (that will be durable after the handle is freed). This way, a tool can track the entire lifecycle of an object -- not just its handle. ----8<----

I was unable to attend the call, but why isn't attaching an attribute with a destructor callback to the object in question sufficient? Is it because we have MPI opaque objects which do not support attributes (e.g., MPI_Op)?

Today's attribute calls give you a callback when MPI_*_FREE is invoked -- when is potentially not when the object is actually destroyed. The Fab+Jeff idea was wondering if anyone cares about the difference between these two; are there any useful use cases where someone could benefit from knowing when the object was actually destroyed? -- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/