[Mpi-22] Several new proposals / moot points

[Jeff Squyres]

Just in time for the Dublin meeting, I have posted several new MPI-2.2  
proposals (it looks like a bunch of others have, too!) based on my  
items from the following URLs:

http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/homes/wgropp/projects/parallel/MPI/mpi-errata/mpi2-2issues.htm#squyres1
http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/homes/wgropp/projects/parallel/MPI/mpi-errata/mpi2-2issues.htm#squyres2
http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/homes/wgropp/projects/parallel/MPI/mpi-errata/mpi2-2issues.htm#squyres3

I numbered each of the proposals with the item number from the above  
URLs.  Here's the resulting proposals on the wiki:

https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi22/CxxBindingsMissingConst
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi22/GrequestStartFnPtrArgs
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi22/FnPtrTypedefNames
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi22/TextUpdatesToLangBindingsChapter
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi22/MPICancelWrongArgType
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi22/NamingConventionsPrefixConsistency
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi22/RemoveCxxDeprecatedSection

Additionally, several of the suggestions that I made on the #squyresX  
URLs are now moot.  Here's a listing by issue number, including brief  
descriptions of why they are moot:

======================================================================

30.c  ?   p4: Two open source MPI implementations are cited that are no
            longer relevant. This entire sentence should be removed.  
Indeed,
            the language in the overall paragraph is forward-looking  
-- it
            should probably be re-worked to be in the present tense.
           Editor's comment: should be done by the Forum

           Editor (WDG): The historical context is important.  Rather
           than remove this, it should be updated.

--> now moot in the final 2.1 doc; the language was re-worked.

======================================================================

30.o  R2  p186.5: Descriptions for the C++ bindings need to be  
included here,
            since they are different than the C bindings. The text  
from 13.1.7
            would seem to be sufficient. (See also 35.e)

---> seems moot now -- MPI-2.1 p195:41 says "Please see Section 16.1.7
on page 455 for further discussion about the C++ bindings for Dup()
and Clone()."

======================================================================

71.c ?  - MPI-2.1 p571 Examples Index: there are still a bunch of
             repeated names, some in all caps, some in mixed case, etc.

71.d ?  - MPI-2.1 p571 Examples Index: There are some examples listed
             just by MPI function name (e.g., MPI_SEND and MPI_Send) --
             are we listing every MPI function in every MPI example?
             How was the selection for these example names given?
             Editor's comment:
               I tried to pick major routines in the examples
               (sometimes not all).  Additionally, for some examples, I
               defined titles for the Index.

71.e ?  - MPI-2.1 p574 MPI Constant and Predefined Handle Index: The
             first entry is still "MPI::*_NULL"

71.f ?  - MPI-2.1 p574 MPI Constant and Predefined Handle Index: Are
             we listing the C++ constants and Fortran constants here,
             too?  Or just the C constants?  Or just language neutral?
             (I only see C++ predefined datatypes listed -- should we
             list all or none of them?)

--> these still need to be cleaned up; but I don't think they need a  
proposal.

======================================================================

p10.35: due to the decision from last meeting (sort out the
            IN/OUT/INOUT mess in MPI-2.2), the language should be  
softened in
            this paragraph and the full paragraph following this one  
(because
            they contradict each other). Specifically, I propose  
changing:

            10.35: Thus, in C++, IN aguments are either references...
            to
                   Thus, in C++, IN arguments are usually either  
references...
           Editor's comment:
             Is there an exception from this rule? If yes, then the  
proposal
             is okay.

--> now moot; MPI 2.1 p10:34 says "...usually..."  Remember that the
     Forum was very careful to state that this is *not* a rule; it's a
     guideline.

======================================================================

32.j' ?   Which names should be visible in the Index for Dup and Clone?
      TODO

--> MPI::Comm::Clone() and MPI::Comm::Dup() show up in MPI-2.1 Annex A. 
4 (C++
bindings) and MPI_COMM_CLONE and MPI_COMM_DUP show up in the MPI
Function Index.  I think that this is sufficient.

======================================================================

30.h MPI-2.1 p11.22: Fortran in this document refers to Fortran
90". For MPI-2.1, it is probably suitable to leave this, but we might
want to make a statement (footnote or parenthetical) that it is
expected to be updated in future MPI spec revisions.

--> I no longer think that this is necessary.

======================================================================

32.k  R2  p445.36-38: Remove this entire paragraph ("Compilers that do  
not
            support..."). This feature has been a part of C++ since C+ 
+98, and
            exists in all modern C++ compilers.

--> Moot: it's gone. (MPI-2.1 p443:46)

======================================================================

33.n  R2  p556.bottom: Missing prototypes for the MPI::Exceptions class

--> Moot: now included in MPI-2.1 A.4.12.

======================================================================

32.r  22  p463.17-18: Delete first sentence; delete "In MPI-2,"

--> Moot: done in MPI-2.2.

======================================================================

Enjoy.


-- 
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems