[Mpi-22] [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140
Rajeev Thakur
thakur at [hidden]
Fri Jun 5 08:54:27 CDT 2009
And it should include the new nonblocking collectives...
Rajeev
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Pavan Balaji
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:21 AM
> To: MPI 2.2
> Cc: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140
>
>
> If this is being moved to MPI-3, we should consider modifying
> the ticket to include functions we left behind for backward
> compatibility. For example:
>
> int MPI_Comm_spawn(const char*, /*const*/char*[], int,
> MPI_Info, int, MPI_Comm, MPI_Comm*, int []);
>
> int MPI_Comm_spawn_multiple(int, /*const*/char*[],
> /*const*/char**[], const int [],/*const*/MPI_Info [], int,
> MPI_Comm, MPI_Comm*, int []);
>
> -- Pavan
>
> On 06/02/2009 09:36 AM, Richard Treumann wrote:
> > Hi Bronis
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, none of the signatories involved in
> > asking that Ticket 140 not become part of MPI 2.2 consider it
> > inappropriate for consideration in MPI 3.0
> >
> > This proposal generated real interest among Forum members
> and I see no
> > reason for it to be withdrawn entirely.
> >
> > Thank you Erez for agreeing to defer this to 3.0. It is a
> relief to a
> > number of MPI implementors that if (or when) this becomes
> part of the
> > MPI standard, we will have the lead time to do it properly
> and test it
> > rigorously.
> >
> > Dick Treumann
> >
> > Dick Treumann - MPI Team
> > IBM Systems & Technology Group
> > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY
> 12601 Tele
> > (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363
> >
> >
> > mpi-forum-bounces_at_[hidden] wrote on 06/01/2009
> 06:28:29 PM:
> >
> > > [image removed]
> > >
> > > Re: [Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140 > >
> > Bronis R. de Supinski > > to:
> > >
> > > Main MPI Forum mailing list
> > >
> > > 06/01/2009 06:32 PM
> > >
> > > Sent by:
> > >
> > > mpi-forum-bounces_at_[hidden]
> > >
> > > Cc:
> > >
> > > "MPI 2.2"
> > >
> > > Please respond to "Bronis R. de Supinski", Main MPI
> Forum mailing
> > list > > > Erez:
> > >
> > > Please do not simply withdraw it. There are a substantial >
> > portion of us who you convinced this was a good idea and >
> what I saw
> > in the feedback was that some found that it > was outside
> the scope
> > of 2.2. I think some of those people > still feel it is a
> good idea
> > even if that is the case.
> > > I hope you will press for 3.0.
> > >
> > > Bronis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Erez Haba wrote:
> > >
> > > > With this feedback of my distinguish colleagues, I
> don't see any
> > > point of perusing this proposal and I will be withdrawing this >
> > ticket in the next mpi forum meeting.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > .Erez
> > > >
> > > > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22- >
> > bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of William Gropp > > Sent:
> > Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:37 AM > > To: MPI 2.2 > > Cc: Main MPI
> > Forum mailing list > > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] [Mpi-forum] The const
> > proposal - Ticket 140 > > > > This is an example of why
> we have two
> > votes - to give everyone a > chance to take a second look at the
> > issues. I'll note that the > 17-10 (counting no's and abstains
> > together) is worrisome; while a > majority vote is the
> rule, a good
> > standard will make a compelling > argument for each feature.
> > > >
> > > > The process here would normally be to have a debate
> and then the
> > > second vote. However, for MPI 2.2, we have the additional >
> > requirements of limited scope of change to implementations - we >
> > didn't define what that meant precisely (and that is a good
> thing), >
> > but there is a strong argument that limited scope of change
> would >
> > require at least a majority of implementations to agree that the >
> > change is minor.
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > > On May 27, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Erez Haba wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi all, I'm not really sure how to respond to this
> email. I will
> > > just note that this proposal has passed 1st vote last
> September with
> > > the following results.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Vote topic: MPI-2.2 const for C bindings, 1st vote:
> > > > YES:
> > > >
> > > > 17
> > > >
> > > > NO:
> > > >
> > > > 4
> > > >
> > > > ABSTAIN:
> > > >
> > > > 6
> > > >
> > > > MISSED:
> > > >
> > > > 0
> > > >
> > > > Result:
> > > >
> > > > Ballot passed
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2008/09/votes.php
> > > >
> > > > since then we decided to postpone the 1st vote to add
> very few >
> > minor correction to ticket #46 (the original proposal) and thus >
> > created ticket #140.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that all the points you mention below have been >
> > discussed in the forum meeting(s).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > .Erez
> > > >
> > > > From: mpi-forum-bounces_at_[hidden]<mailto:mpi-forum-
> > > bounces_at_[hidden]>
> > [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces_at_[hidden]
> > > ] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM > > To: Main MPI Forum
> > mailing list > > Cc:
> > mpi-22_at_[hidden]<mailto:mpi-22_at_[hidden]>
> > > > Subject: [Mpi-forum] The const proposal - Ticket 140
> > > > > >
> > > All - > > > > The signatories of this letter represent the
> > majority of MPI > implementors participating in the MPI
> Forum. We are
> > concerned that > proposal #140 ("Add const Keyword to the C
> > bindings") has a number > of issues which suggest delaying
> to MPI-3
> > would be appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > In particular, the proposal:
> > > >
> > > > - Is likely to pass a simple majority vote, but does not carry
> > the > support of the majority of MPI implementors, suggesting
> > consensus > has not been reached.
> > > > - Changes 90+ MPI API interfaces, which is not a
> "trivial" change
> > > and therefore does not meet the intent of the MPI-2.2 process.
> > > > - Is not needed to fix any serious bug in the standard
> text or to
> > > solve an issue that cannot easily be avoided by the MPI
> application.
> > > > - Does not offer any demonstrable optimization
> opportunities for
> > > implementation or application, but may constrain future >
> > implementation opportunities.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, we ask for your assistance in deferring
> proposal #140
> > > to the MPI-3 process, where more time can be spent
> assessing its impact.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > >
> > > > - Cisco: Jeff Squires
> > > > - Intel: Alexander Supalov & Keith Underwood > > -
> Sandia: Brian
> > Barrett > > - IBM: Richard Treumann > > - QLogic: Avneesh
> Pant > >
> > - UTenn: George Bosilca > > - HP: David George Solt > > -
> UHouston:
> > Edgar Gabriel > > - Myricom: Patrick Geoffray > > - ORNL: Richard
> > Graham > > - Sun: Terry Dontje > > - NEC: Hubert Ritzdorf
> & Jesper
> > Traeff > > > > > > > > Dick Treumann - MPI Team > >
> IBM Systems &
> > Technology Group > > Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road --
> > Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 > > Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845)
> 433-8363 >
> > > <ATT00001.txt> > > > > William Gropp > > Deputy Director for
> > Research > > Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and
> > Technologies > > Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer
> > Science > > University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpi-forum mailing list
> > > mpi-forum_at_[hidden]
> > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi-22 mailing list
> > mpi-22_at_[hidden]
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22
>
> --
> Pavan Balaji
> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-22 mailing list
> mpi-22_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22
>
More information about the Mpi-22
mailing list