[Mpi-forum] [Mpi-22] The const proposal - Ticket 140
treumann at us.ibm.com
Tue Jun 2 09:36:47 CDT 2009
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reason for it to be withdrawn entirely.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
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 lists.mpi-forum.org 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
> Main MPI Forum mailing list
> 06/01/2009 06:32 PM
> Sent by:
> mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> "MPI 2.2"
> Please respond to "Bronis R. de Supinski", Main MPI Forum mailing list
> 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.
> 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 lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-22-
> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] 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 lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:mpi-forum-
> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org>
[mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> ] On Behalf Of Richard Treumann
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:53 AM
> > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> > Cc: mpi-22 at lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:mpi-22 at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> > 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 lists.mpi-forum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mpi-forum