Is this just a convenience function? I ask because all it effectively does is move the loop looking for the variable down to the MPI_T layer. On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Kathryn Mohror <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi all,

I've started to work on 3.1 items. The first one is to allow the look up of variables by name instead of having to iterate through all variables until you find the one you want (assuming you know the name in advance). What do people think of this for supporting that functionality:

MPI_T_CVAR_GET_INFO_NAMED IN name OUT cvar_index OUT verbosity OUT datatype OUT enumtype OUT desc INOUT desc_len OUT bind OUT scope

MPI_T_CVAR_GET_INFO_NAMED behaves similarly to MPI_T_CVAR_GET_INFO except that the lookup is done by control variable name instead of its index. All restrictions and requirements for MPI_T_CVAR_GET_INFO are the same for MPI_GET_CVAR_INFO_NAMED except that the cvar_index is now returned from the function, and name is an input.

Then define MPI_T_PVAR_GET_INFO_NAMED in a similar fashion.

Thoughts? Objections?

Kathryn

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

_______________________________________________ Mpi3-tools mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-tools

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