[Mpi-22] MPI-2.1 ambiguity?

[William Gropp]

Any behavior other than branch A violates the principle of least  
surprise.
Bill

On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> On Jul 18, 2008, at 2:21 PM, William Gropp wrote:
>
>>> It might be a whole lot simpler to specifically define which
>>> predefined handles need to be available in each language.  The
>>> spectrum ranges from "all languages' predefined handles must be
>>> available in every language" to "only that language A's predefined
>>> handles must be available in language A".  Suggestions?
>>
>> I'm in favor of explicitly specifying the values and names (because
>> of the need to use alternate names when their might be a conflict,
>> as in the MPI::F_COMPLEX case), and that these have the exact same
>> value as if the handle transfer function was used.
>
> Do we really need to mandate that they have the same value, or just
> exhibit the same behavior?  Specifically does it matter if this code
> hits branch A or B?
>
>      MPI_Fint ftype;
>      ftype = MPI_Type_c2f(MPI_INT);
>      if (MPI_INT == MPI_Type_f2c(ftype)) {
>          //branch A
>      } else {
>          //branch B
>      }
>
> Or is it simpler to say that the return from an operation like the
> above must behave exactly like the original, regardless of value?
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-22 mailing list
> mpi-22_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22

William Gropp
Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign



* 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-22/attachments/20080718/185aa8f7/attachment.html>