On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Martin Schulz <[email protected]> wrote:

Is this intended as temporary internal name or for the standard at the end.

Name for the standard.

For the former, it¹s fine, but I don¹t think it¹s a good idea to have a special name space in the MPI standard. The forum already hated the idea of MPIT and we had to change it to MPI_T. Also, most of these functions are also intended for users, so why shouldn¹t they be normal MPI functions?

That's a fair point, and I don't have a good answer. It's just a subjective feeling that a "QMPI_" namespace is good to be separate to indicate that you're talking with tools, not really the MPI implementation.

We conquered (I think?) the biggest problem we had with multiple tools, the specification of which tools to load (this was the main reason why I suggested to limit the proposal). I think the dependencies are easy, which leaves ordering. Perhaps we should have at least some support for this already in the proposal.

Well, hmm. There's still multi-tool problems, though -- e.g., ordering, pre/post side effects, replacement (i.e., tool A not getting called for MPI_Send because tool B decided to implement MPI_Send as MPI_Isend/MPI_Wait, etc.). But perhaps you could convince me. :-) Do you want to sketch something out and come back with some ideas? -- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/