<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><u>Issue number 1:<o:p></o:p></u></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’d like to get some feedback on the msq writeup about function definition and their description. Please take a look at 6.8.3, for example<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">mqs_fetch_data_ft<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Function type definition:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">typedef int (*mqs_fetch_data_ft) (mqs_process*, mqs_taddr_t, int, void*);<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is how things are defined in the existing interface. Would it actually be more helpful if we do this in the document.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Function type definition<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">typedef int (*mqs_fetch_data_ft) (mqs_process* pProcess, mqs_taddr_t address, int numBytes, void* buf);<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I.e., give each parameter a name, so that it’s easier to explain each of them? Right now my explanation of each of the field is kinda … meh. With each of them having a name, we can probably structure them into IN and OUT fields (similar
to the standard).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note that this will not change the existing interface, just how we present things in the document. The two definitions are completely equivalent as far as the compilers and the code generated are concerned (please shout if this is not true)
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Last time on the call everyone kinda insisted that the document should stay as close to the existing interface as possible so I’d like to get an opinion on this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><u>Issue number 2:<o:p></o:p></u></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don’t see the definition (implementation) of mqs_get_comm_group in our existing code and the existing MPICH code. This should be a functionality provided by the DLL, and not the debugger, am I correct?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">--Anh<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>