[Mpi-forum] Proposal for the MPI-3 standardization process

William Gropp wgropp at illinois.edu
Wed Dec 22 11:48:17 CST 2010

I'll reiterate that requiring an implementation is a major change over  
the MPI 1 and MPI 2 process.  In addition, I'm not sure what real  
value there is in requiring an implementation that runs on a  
particular platform.  In the 2.x process, this was intended to address  
the "minimal implementation effort" requirement, and hence was a  
reasonable requirement.  This should not be a constraint for MPI-3.


On Dec 22, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Graham, Richard L. wrote:

> I will take this, and what Rolf sent, and add to what we had decided  
> at the meeting.  I think the main point of disagreement is on the  
> implementation.  There was a very strong sense the an implementation  
> is required before formal action by the forum.  However, since this  
> is intended to  help the process, and not just create work, the  
> notion was that the forum could decide to bypass this, but it would  
> have to be a unanimous decision.
> Rich
> On 12/22/10 12:04 PM, "William Gropp" <wgropp at illinois.edu> wrote:
> I have taken Rolf's version and further edited it to clarify the
> language a bit and add the definition of simple majority that we have
> always used.
> Bill
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

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

More information about the mpi-forum mailing list