[Mpi-forum] Ticket 125/126 PDF ready for review
Rolf Rabenseifner
rabenseifner at hlrs.de
Sun Jan 29 05:39:48 CST 2012
Do we have any problem with existing applications
that go with current syntax and examples,
when we change the MPI library and examples into the other syntax?
I expect no.
Here a list of all location, and at the end my PROPOSAL:
MPI-2.2 p24:7
MPI_Init((void *)0, (void *)0);
MPI-2.2 p25:21-28 and p209:10-14, p209:27-32, p210:6-12,
p210:31-39, p211:32-41, p212:23-29, p213:47-p214:15,
p221:38-46, p222:46-p223:16, p326:40-48, p327:33-39
int main( int argc, char **argv )
{
...
MPI_Init( &argc, &argv );
MPI-2.2 p290:42
int MPI_Init(int *argc, char ***argv)
MPI-2.2 p291:7-9
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
MPI_Init(&argc, &argv);
MPI-2.2 p316:40-46, and p317:39-43
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
...
MPI_Init(&argc, &argv);
MPI-2.2 p384:27
int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char *((*argv)[]), int required, int *provided)
PROPOSAL:
Based on the number of locations and the history (MPI_Init is many years older),
I would recommend to change only the definition of MPI_Init_thread to
int MPI_Init_thread(... char ***argv ...
and keep the three different usage examples with
(1x) MPI_Init((void *)0, (void *)0);
(13x) int main( int argc, char **argv )
MPI_Init(&argc, &argv);
(2x) int main(int argc, char *argv[])
MPI_Init(&argc, &argv);
We may add a short comment into the two major examples p25 and p291:
p25:21 and p291:7 read
int main(int argc, char **argv)
but should read
int main(int argc, char **argv)
/* or int main(int argc, char *argv[]) */
I would say that this is a minimal change solving the problem
to make clear that argv is an array of strings and to
have consistent definitions of MPI_Init and MPI_Init_thread.
Best regards
Rolf
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fab Tillier" <ftillier at microsoft.com>
> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:51:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Ticket 125/126 PDF ready for review
> Yeah, I don't care enough either, I just want someone to tell me which
> way to go and I'll make the LaTeX change accordingly.
>
> -Fab
>
> Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 at 10:50:37
>
> > I am secretary. I declare ***!
> >
> > (...if only it were so easy...)
> >
> > Regardless, I agree with the ultimate end goal: INIT and INIT-thread
> > should
> > be the same.
> >
> > Sent from my phone. No type good.
> >
> > On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:41 PM, "Jeff Hammond" <jhammond at alcf.anl.gov>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I favor "int main(int argc, char *argv[]);" because it is clear
> >> that
> >> the second argument is an array of "char*". I believe that the
> >> standard uses this convention in some places (perhaps nonuniformly)
> >> to
> >> make it clear when the argument is an array, as opposed to a
> >> pointer
> >> to a scalar. However, I believe there is no good answer because C's
> >> handling of strings is stupid.
> >>
> >> Ultimately, this is a religious question and cannot be reasoned
> >> about.
> >> I favor letting Bill or another equivalently Pope-like individual
> >> decide this question once and for all.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> >> <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:
> >>> In C ** and *[] are the same, so I'd go with the simpler ***.
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my phone. No type good.
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:05 PM, "Fab Tillier"
> >>> <ftillier at microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I dunno. I guess it depends on what you think the prototype for C
> >>>> main is.
> >>>>
> >>>> int main(int argc, char *argv[]);
> >>>> or
> >>>> int main(int argc, char **argv);
> >>>>
> >>>> I've mostly seen it as the former, so was trying to stay
> >>>> consistent with
> > that. After all, argv is an array of char*, and in MPI_Init, it's a
> > pointer to an
> > array of char*...
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't say I care really strongly about this one, I just think
> >>>> MPI_Init and
> > MPI_Init_thread should be consistent, and the ticket was clarifying
> > what
> > parameters were arrays vs. pointers.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Fab
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff Squyres wrote on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 at 05:03:29
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think it looks ok, meaning that I checked your changes. I did
> >>>>> not
> >>>>> check to see if you missed any.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That being said, I'm not a fan of the MPI_INIT_THREAD C
> >>>>> declaration
> >>>>> -- it seems to just be more confusing than using ***.
> >>>>> Specifically,
> >>>>> it's:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char *((*argv)[]), int required,
> >>>>> int
> >>>>> *provided)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Personally, I think *** is cleaner/easier to understand:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> int MPI_Init_thread(int *argc, char ***argv, int required, int
> >>>>> *provided)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would advocate changing MPI_Init_thread to *** rather than
> >>>>> changing MPI_Init to the complicated [] syntax.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Fab Tillier wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Folks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've implemented the changes to the standard document for
> >>>>>> tickets
> > 125
> >>>>> and 126. The PDF is attached to the ticket, and available here:
> >>>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/raw-
> >>>>> attachment/ticket/125/ticket-125.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A couple notes where I deviated from the tickets: - I didn't
> >>>>>> distinguish between input and output parameter changes, so all
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> changes are marked as ticket125 - I did not add 'const' for the
> >>>>>> input parameters, as that was already done by ticket 140 - I
> >>>>>> only
> >>>>>> updated the C bindings - I did not update MPI_Type_hindexed and
> >>>>>> MPI_Type_struct in the deprecated chapter. - I updated MPI_Init
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> match the parameter definition of MPI_Init_thread.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'd appreciate if folks could take a look and comment, letting
> >>>>>> me know
> >>>>>> if I botched anything, or missed anything that should be
> >>>>>> changed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> -Fab
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list
> >>>>>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> mpi-forum mailing list
> >>>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> mpi-forum mailing list
> >>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeff Hammond
> >> Argonne Leadership Computing Facility
> >> University of Chicago Computation Institute
> >> jhammond at alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381
> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond
> >> https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/old/index.php/User:Jhammond
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mpi-forum mailing list
> >> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi-forum mailing list
> > mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
--
Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner at hlrs.de
High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530
University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832
Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner
Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30)
More information about the mpi-forum
mailing list