A tiny typo: p566, line 30: IN index number of the value ... should be IN index index of the value ... --Junchao Zhang On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Kathryn Mohror <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Junchao,

Sorry for the delay. I've been at SC.

In the MPI_T return code Table (P589), there are

Return Codes for Datatype Functions: MPI_T_ENUM_* MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_INDEX The enumeration index is invalid or has been deleted. MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_ITEM The item index queried is out of range (for MPI_T_ENUM_GET_ITEM only)

Why we used "enumeration index" here? Since in the standard, it is called a handle.

I think the text could better read "enumeration item index" since the index is for an item in the enumeration, not the enumeration itself.

And why designed MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_ITEM specially for MPI_T_ENUM_GET_ITEM?

I believe the intent was to differentiate between an index that is out of range and one that may have been deleted or invalidated for some reason, which would give more information than just one error code.

Do others feel this needs changing? If so, what do you think needs to happen? Possibly this:

In my view, there should be MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_ENUM, MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_INDEX respectively.

Or another suggestion: return MPI_T_ERR_INVALID_INDEX for indices that are invalid or deleted and MPI_T_ERR_INVALID in the case that the index is out of range. If it's out of range, it's a misuse of the interface, so it fits with the intent of the new return code.

Kathryn

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

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

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