[mpi-21] Ballot 4 - Re: Request for interpretation
Cownie, James H
james.h.cownie at [hidden]
Thu Jan 31 08:39:52 CST 2008
As you are saying, there are two different classes of errors here.
1) Keys which are not understood and need to be ignored by functions
which don't grok them ("JIMS_SECRET_TAG","99")
2) Keys which are understood by a function, but with a value which is
not ("buffer_size", "Hello")
I think allowing the second type to have undefined behavior is the right
thing to do, since it's the most general.
If your implementation wants to define the behavior of some out-of-range
values, that's fine and doesn't make you non-conforming, it just means
you defined the previously undefined behavior for some set of values.
Having that undefined-ness explicit here (in one central place) seems to
make sense (if only because it may be omitted in one of the other places
where it should appear).
My addition does not alter the existing change which guarantees case 1,
it's only concerned with case 2.
-- Jim
James Cownie <james.h.cownie_at_[hidden]>
SSG/DPD/PAT
Tel: +44 117 9071438
________________________________
From: mpi-21-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-21-bounces_at_[hidden]] On
Behalf Of Richard Treumann
Sent: 31 January 2008 14:20
To: Mailing list for discussion of MPI 2.1
Subject: Re: [mpi-21] Ballot 4 - Re: Request for interpretation
Jim -
I was taking the view that the description of what to do for a
recognized key but dubious value belongs to the function that recognizes
the specific key. For example if MPI_File_open accepts a "buffer_size"
hint with range "32K" to "16M" we may want to define the behavior of
hints that are out of range.
Once we say an info can have arbitrary keys we need to state that every
info consumer must be prepared to ignore keys it does not recognize
because we have made unrecognizable keys legitimate.
Dick
Dick Treumann - MPI Team/TCEM
IBM Systems & Technology Group
Dept 0lva / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363
mpi-21-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 01/31/2008 08:43:04 AM:
> However, you have apparently lost the liberty to have undefined
> behavior which was there in the previous version.
>
> Maybe you should keep that, something like
> An implementation must support info objects as caches for arbitrary
> (key, value) pairs, regardless of whether it recognizes the keys.
> Each MPI function which takes hints in the form of an MPI_Info must
> be prepared to ignore any key it does not recognize. However if a
> function recognizes a key but not the associated value, then the
> behavior is undefined.
> (Modifications in italics)
> -- Jim
>
> James Cownie <james.h.cownie_at_[hidden]>
> SSG/DPD/PAT
> Tel: +44 117 9071438
>
> From: mpi-21-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-21-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Richard Treumann
> Sent: 31 January 2008 13:29
> To: Mailing list for discussion of MPI 2.1
> Subject: Re: [mpi-21] Ballot 4 - Re: Request for interpretation
>
> Your wording works for me Rolf. -- Thanks
>
>
> Dick Treumann - MPI Team/TCEM
> IBM Systems & Technology Group
> Dept 0lva / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
> Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363
>
>
> mpi-21-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 01/31/2008 05:25:46 AM:
>
> > I try to summarize all 3 replies in one proposal:
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
> > Proposal:
> > MPI 2.0, Sect. 4.10 Info Objects, page 43, line 38-40 read:
> > If a function does not recognize a key,
> > it will ignore it, unless otherwise specified.
> > If an implementation recognizes a key but does not recognize
> > the format of the corresponding value, the result is undefined.
> > but should read:
> > An implementation must support info objects as caches for
arbitrary
> > (key, value) pairs, regardless of whether it recognizes the
pairs.
> > Each MPI function which takes hints in the form of an MPI_Info
must
> > be prepared to ignore any key it does not recognize.
> >
> > Add after MPI 2.0, Sect. 4.10 Info Objects, page 44, line 22 a new
> > paragraph:
> > Advice to implementors.
> > Although in MPI functions that take hints in form of an MPI_Info
> > (e.g., in process creation and management, one-sided
communication,
> > or parallel file I/O), an implementation must be prepared to
ignore
> > keys that it does not recognize, for the purpose of
MPI_INFO_GET_NKEYS,
> > MPI_INFO_GET_NTHKEY, MPI_INFO_GET_VALUELEN, and MPI_INFO_GET, the
> > implementation must retain all (key,value) pairs so that layered
> > functionality can also use the Info object.
> > (End of advice to implementors.)
> > _____________________________
> > Rationale for this clarification:
> >
> > The MPI-2.0 text allowed that also MPI_INFO_DELETE, MPI_INFO_SET,
> > MPI_INFO_GET, and MPI_INFO_DUP could ignore (key,value) pairs
> > that are not recognized in routines in other chapters that
> > take hints with info arguments.
> > The proposed clarification is necessary when we assume, that
> > layered implementation of parts of the MPI-2 standard should
> > be possible and may use the MPI_Info objects for their needs.
> > This was a goal of the MPI-2 Forum and the MPI-2.0 specification.
> > ___________________________________
> >
> > Bronis, for me, your wording "an MPI implementation may restrict"
was
> > in conflict with the rest of the advice. I hope the formulation
above
> > is also okay. It is based on the new wording from you and Dick in
first
> > part of the proposal.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Rolf
> >
> >
> > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email
rabenseifner_at_[hidden]
> > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone
++49(0)711/685-65530
> > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 /
685-65832
> > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . .
www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner
> > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30)
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi-21 mailing list
> > mpi-21_at_[hidden]
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi-21
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
> Registered No. 1134945 (England)
> Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
> VAT No: 860 2173 47
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-21 mailing list
> mpi-21_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi-21
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-21/attachments/20080131/23f5738f/attachment.html>
More information about the Mpi-21
mailing list