Hi Kathryn, you used the <foo>=MPI_T version right? What do you think about this: ---o---o---o---o--- 14.3.3 ... Several query functions of the MPI_T interface return information encoded in C strings. A user of these query routines can influence the concrete length of the output through INOUT length parameters to these calls, potentially resulting in a truncated string. As the INOUT length parameters are allowed to vary across different invocations of a call, two strings returned by subsequent calls with varying length arguments but otherwise identical arguments may not be identical as defined by the result of the strcmp family of calls. However, they have to be equivalent. In the scope of the MPI_T interface, two strings are regarded equivalent, if any arbitrary combination of length arguments result in the same string-prefix up to the smaller of the two lengths. ---o---o---o---o--- This goes back to Michael's initial idea of regarding "pairs of strings". Again, some of my prose may be convoluted and I am open to any revision. ;-) And then we don't need the "MPI_T" string at all, as the equivalence is all the "specialness" we want from our strings. Thus, we can then (at those 6 places) just state: "parameters foo and bar have to be equivalent as described in 14.3.3." What do you think? Cheers, Marc-Andre On 19.11.14 21:53, Kathryn Mohror wrote:
Okay, here's a draft attempting to capture what Jeff and Martin were getting at in the last meeting. I made changes to 14.3.3 and to the text of the get_info routines for name and desc parameters, and to the last paragraph for the routine description.
Have at it!
Kathryn _________________________________________________________________ Kathryn Mohror, [email protected], http://scalability.llnl.gov/ Scalability Team @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
On 11/19/14, 12:17 PM, "Kathryn Mohror" <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Bronis. I like the suggestion of equivalence instead of identical.
Kathryn
"quasi-identical" and its variants sounds horrible to me without even looking at the context. What do you want to require? "functionally equivalent"? I think you need to move away from the word "identical" and think instead in terms of "equivalence"...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Marc-Andre Hermanns wrote:
Hi Kathryn,
I think we don't have to search&replace the word string for <foo> string throughout the chapter. I think we only need to define <foo> string in 14.3.3 and then state for the 6 parameters so far that those are foo strings.
Okay, I'll work on it and try to integrate it cleanly.
By and large <foo> strings are just like other C string. We just have additional requirements to what "identical" means. That is why I came up with the name: "quasi-identical", because they are not identical in the normal C string sense (str*cmp). As "quasi-identical" is a new kind of string, that probably no-one heard in a different context, so has no preoccupation on what it could mean, a reader should go: "What's that?" and refer to Section 14.3.3.
What's the groups take on the name "quasi-identical"?
I'm not totally sold on 'quasi-identical' but possibly because I don't use the prefix 'quasi' very often. Also, I almost think that it takes away from the fact that the internal representation of the strings does need to be identical, but what is passed to the user may be different due to truncation.
Yes, the "quasi" might be a German thing, although I think is also exists in English. I am open to any other suggestion.
For the the quasi just expresses their actual state, we regard them as identical, although the actual strings returned do not have to the identical in the strcmp sense (due to different length). So they are identical and at the same time they are not. That is a little "quasi" to me ;-)
What about:
prospect-identical? source-identical?
That said, I don't have a replacement suggestion right this second.
Should we have an "out-of-order" telco tomorrow to discuss this? As we need to finalize our wording by Monday in order for 383 to be an errata, I think we need to make progress before the weekend.
I'm not sure if that will work with everyone at SC. It would coincide with the 10:00 AM technical papers sessions. I suppose though if people pipe up that they would be able to join, that would be good and I would be able to be on the call. Of course, as you say in your post script, we could pick another time, too.
Obviously, I am fine with any earlier time slot, but that would not go well with pacific time. I would have more again after 8 pm CET. Maybe the people at SC suggest a time that fits into the program for them?
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]
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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]
participants (1)
-
Marc-Andre Hermanns