[Mpi-21] Review of MPI-2.1 combined document

Jeff Squyres jsquyres at [hidden]
Wed Mar 5 21:05:42 CST 2008

On Feb 23, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:

> The first draft of the combined document MPI 1.x plus MPI 2.0
> is ready for review !!!

A few general comments on the document:

- I love the new items in the index (constants, typedefs, etc.).  Very  

- I see a few EXAMPLES items in the index.  But this is clearly not  
*all* the examples.  What's the intent for these items?

- p568 in the index has a whole series of lower-case CONST items in  
the second column that appear to be mistakes (e.g., column headings  
and the like).  Ditto for both columns on page 565 (first page of the  
index).  It looks like a macro is being mis-used throughout the  

- It would be really, Really, REALLY nice if the printed page numbers  
agreed with the PDF page numbers.  :-)  E.g., the first page of the  
index has "565" on the bottom of the page, but my PDF viewer tells me  
that it's really page 583.

- How about adding a list of tables and list of figures to the  
beginning of the document (after the TOC)?  How about possibly a list  
of examples?  (I don't know if that's as trivial to generate as LOF/LOT)

- In the credits on pages xvi and xvii, should institutions  
participating in MPI-2.1 be listed?  (I can't remember if we discussed  
this at the last meeting)  I.e., there are organizations contributing  
to the 2.1 document who are not being given credit (e.g., Cisco :-) ).

- page 3: "MPI-2 compliance will mean compliance with all of MPI-2."   
The statement right above that says "MPI-1 compliance will mean  
compliance with MPI-1.2.", but the credits (page xviii) cite MPI-1.3  
and MPI-2.1.

- page 5: I see "MPI-2" are in the wrong font twice (there may be  

- I still have a problem with the wording in section 2.3 about IN /  
OUT / INOUT, particularly because in section 2.3 we say that IN/OUT/ 
INOUT does *not* correspond to language bindings, but section 2.6.4  
(pages 21-22) specifically states that IN arguments were made "const"  
in the C++ bindings. I also still have a problem with the special  
exception for INOUT.  Are these topics covered in a ballot somewhere?  
(those are on my to-do list to examine; haven't gotten there yet...).

Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems

More information about the Mpi-21 mailing list