Yes, I agree, we should probably submit an errata for this text. Martin On 2/5/16, 4:50 PM, "mpiwg-tools on behalf of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

...

On Feb 5, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Schulz, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

That¹s a good question and I don¹t think we say - my original intent when writing the document (based on my personal model that I had in my head for this) was to provide no guarantees once MPI_T gets uninitialized, so in this case both versions would be OK. In fact, it could be even worse - what happens in case 1 if the component is not reloaded? Do you still have access to the variable at all? This is probably more likely if the MPI_T only block is after MPI_Finalize (since this would unload components), but the principle is the same.

For the discovery/query routines we state that the numbering is not allowed to change between ³runs², which may have been the wrong thing to say - it probably should say ³while MPI_T is initialized². In this case, there would really not be any guarantees at all. If you wanted guarantees, you would have to keep MPI_T initialized.

That sounds fine to me. I think that this is worth an errata.

-- 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://secure-web.cisco.com/1YQzVZ9p1gLekoVYv9VGQ_-CNEYsPlQQtkva9wBeUEuV5I NONI4Nm-vTVCCxm4xjArNq97pldPUVCOWShL7-hhjDh_0uYjZ9MYdA28tvg1pIvOl8shxbRxZh 3FbapA2wu5Q99HsmgPLjCxBBGktJijRvb9BIcaGKHBzMAFlDIX_mz5BZNMo2JRmvTX1neOfbyF PTV_rVef2O7blagdgDD7YOeu54XlV9ImkS8qcvLeGLcxfmzeu1pPNMN4IoiiAao7Iz2Xh9y7MM dtqOZi6XcylO9kxyregmJifR44SqEhZukURI8THsglPLQvSmkYM0iVJuc9ZlEXl9nruau-AFKa VH8WgAzBQkDzVeG2StEuxo/http%3A%2F%2Flists.mpi-forum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistin fo.cgi%2Fmpiwg-tools