[Mpi-22] Higher-level languages proposal

[Terry Dontje]

Supalov, Alexander wrote:
> Dear Jeff,
>
> Unfortunately, I won't be in Chicago, so we should rather discuss this
> here. I talked to Torsten last time about this extension. As far as I
> can remember, the main purpose of this extension is to make sure that
> the thread that called the MPI_Probe also calls the MPI_Recv and gets
> the message matched by the aforementioned MPI_Probe.
>
> If so, the main problem here is not the matching. The main problem is
> that one cannot address threads in MPI. If we fix that, the proposed
> extension with the message handle and such will become superfluous.
>
> See what I mean?
>
>   
Interesting, so you are basically redefining the MPI_Probe/Recv pair to 
guarrantee a message to go to a specific thread.  Or in other words 
lowering the proposal's MPI_Mprobe/recv to be in the implementation of 
MPI_Probe/Recv.  This seems reasonable to me since MPI_Probe/Recv itself 
is basically useless unless the programmer assures serialization when 
that combination is used.

--td
> Best regards.
>
> Alexander 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 11:48 PM
> To: MPI 2.2
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] Higher-level languages proposal
>
> On Oct 13, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote:
>
>   
>> Thanks. The 2.1.1, which was presented last time, in my opinion does  
>> not
>> seem to solve the right problem. Instead of defining a way for
>> unambiguous addressing of the threads in MPI, which would eliminate  
>> the
>> MPI_Probe/Recv ambiguity and many other issues, it attempts to add yet
>> another concept (this time, a message id) in the current situation  
>> where
>> any thread can do what they please.
>>     
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand your proposal.
>
> <... after typing out a lengthy/rambling discourse that made very  
> little sense and was fraught with questions and ambiguities :-) ...>
>
> Let's discuss this in Chicago; Rich has allocated 5-7pm on Monday for  
> discussion of this proposal.  These are exactly the kinds of larger  
> issues that we want to raise via this proposal.
>
>