[Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
Supalov, Alexander
alexander.supalov at intel.com
Tue Jul 24 02:35:13 CDT 2012
Hi everybody,
I see that that my innocent remarks re. Annex A have lead to a lot of discussion. What I'm going to say may resemble Bart Simpson's "I didn't do it", but I think I have to:
When commenting on the MPI_T_* names, I meant only their composition that differed from most other comparable MPI constant names in that it was 1) using contractions and 2) not using underscores to separate different words. The MPI_T_CANTINIT was but one example of this. I proposed to change all MPI_T_* names to follow the more traditional rules (i.e., 1) do not use contractions and 2) do use underscores), which lead to the MPI_T_CANNOT_INIT proposal that should be consistently followed up on for every other MPI_T_* name. The MPI_ERR_LASTCODE was mentioned as a counterexample of a known MPI constant name that was not following this set of rules either. Oh well, this is an old one and we won't change it. At no time did I intend the MPI_T series to become a part of the MPI_ERR series, although I must admit that they look really close when you start thinking about them. We will probably have enough time for this contemplation in the MPI 3.1 time frame.
To sum up, my proposal now is:
1) Consider replacing contractions in all MPI_T_* names
2) Consider using underscores in all MPI_T_* names
3) Drop the MPI_ERR and MPI_T connection idea
And if 1) and 2) are considered too invasive at this point, I won't go nuts either: after all, these are just constant names.
Best regards.
Alexander
-----Original Message-----
From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Schulz, Martin
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:19 AM
To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
Hi Adam, all,
I don't think that is necessary in this case. The way the tools section is written right now, all MPI_T return codes are well defined and can be interpreted without translating them.
In addition to that, I don't like the idea of creating a separate number space (aside from the issue that this is very invasive at this point): it is not really consistent with MPI_T functions being part of the MPI namespace (as requested by the forum during one of the readings) and it also provides no clean way for tools, in particular PMPI tools that use MPI_T, to return MPI_T return codes as error conditions for MPI routines.
Martin
On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:45 PM, Adam T. Moody wrote:
> This reminds me of the discussions we had on datatypes, regarding
> which datatypes are available and can be used before MPI_Init is called.
> Since people weren't keen on the fact of duplicating all of the
> datatypes and associated routines for MPI_T, in that case, we boiled
> down the list of datatypes allowed in MPI_T to a very limited set of
> the existing MPI datatypes, and then required that implementations
> support these after MPI_T_INIT but before MPI_INIT.
>
> I think it's best to resolve this cleanly, even if that means things
> are undefined between now and 3.1. I can think of two "clean" ways to
> resolve this:
>
> 1) remove all overlap of MPI_T_ and MPI_ error codes, i.e., MPI_T_
> errors live in a separate space from MPI_ errors, 0 = MPI_T_SUCCESS <
> MPI_T_* < MPI_T_LAST_ERRCODE, and introduce new corresponding
> MPI_T_ERROR_CLASS/STRING functions that can be invoked after
> MPI_T_INIT. Then all MPI_T functions return MPI_T error codes (and
> only MPI_T error codes), which must be interpretted with the new
> MPI_T_ERROR* functions. Personally, it feels a little strange to pass
> an MPI_T_ error code to standard MPI_ functions, since we've otherwise
> separated the interfaces as much as possible.
>
> 2) Specify that MPI_T error codes can be passed to the existing
> MPI_ERROR* functions, but require that implementations allow one to
> call these functions before MPI_INIT (at least for MPI_T_ error codes).
>
> By the way, does the standard say anything about calling MPI_ERROR*
> functions before MPI_INIT? What if someone wanted to process an error
> code returned from one of the functions you are allowed to call before
> MPI_INIT, such as MPI_INITIALIZED?
> -Adam
>
>
> Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
>
>> These are good points. I withdraw my agreement to the changes until
>> Martin or Rolf addresses them.
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Mohror, Kathryn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have some concerns over this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and
>>>> MPI_ERROR_STRING outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1.
>>>> This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know the
>>>> meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If we are going to treat MPI_T error codes the same way they are in the rest of the standard, does it make sense to say that "only classes are returned" by MPI_T calls? I think that MPI calls return codes and the codes are translated to classes by the MPI_ERROR_CLASS function.
>>>
>>> If MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING are not available before MPI_Init, then this may be a hardship on tools. I imagine many tools doing a significant amount of set up before MPI_Init to avoid overhead. However, if there is no information about what the return codes mean, then tools may have difficulty.
>>>
>>> Possibly it makes more sense to treat MPI_T return values differently than MPI calls? Could the MPI_T return values be a set of defined codes instead?
>>>
>>> Does anyone have different insight on error codes vs classes?
>>>
>>> Kathryn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-
>>>> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Bronis R. de Supinski
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:37 AM
>>>> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK by me.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Dave Goodell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I agree, we should make these changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:55 AM CDT, Schulz, Martin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Rolf, all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with your suggestions and I am in favor of making these changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Bronis (as well as Kathryn and Dave as the remaining members in the
>>>> chapter committee for tools) should concur, though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Anybody else have any concerns over these changes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the callability of the error functions, I also agree -
>>>>>> let's target those in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> 3.1. This change is not vital and bit too big for final edits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:00 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin et al.,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consistently with your proposal, I would recommend:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Sect 14.3.9 "Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface"
>>>>>>> last sentence reads
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values
>>>>>>> and cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the
>>>>>>> MPI implementation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but should read
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values
>>>>>>>> and cannot overlap with any other
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> error codes and error classes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> returned by the MPI
>>>>>>>> implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error
>>>>>>>> classes as defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and
>>>>>>>> restrictions,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> especially they must satisfy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) A.1.1 the first three tables are headed by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Error classes
>>>>>>> Error classes (continued)
>>>>>>> Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and these lines should read
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Error classes
>>>>>>> Error classes (continued)
>>>>>>> Error classes (continued)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) The last line of A.1.1, 2nd table
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> should move after the last MPI_T_ERR_... code in the 3rd table.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The topic about user-callability of MPI_ERROR_CLASS and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> MPI_ERROR_STRING
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> outside of the initialized MPI should be revisited in MPI-3.1.
>>>>>>> This is not evident for the tools' developers because they know
>>>>>>> the meaning of their MPI_T_ERR... classes and only classes are returned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to have a final "okay" before I execute the changes
>>>>>>> in chap-appLang.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>> Rolf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm at llnl.gov>
>>>>>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list"
>>>>>>>> <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:23:40 AM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Rolf, all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought we had discussed the error semantics of MPI_T in
>>>>>>>> several meetings/readings and nobody objected, but I generally
>>>>>>>> agree with your comments below. However, they are not really
>>>>>>>> error classes (at least in the tools group we/I never thought
>>>>>>>> about them this way), but just well defined return codes.
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, they fit the model and semantics of classes and
>>>>>>>> hence should integrated into the same rules for consistency. I
>>>>>>>> also agree with Bronis, though, that larger feedback on this would be good to avoid errors because of rushing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To keep changes minimal, I would suggest that we only change
>>>>>>>> the following sentence, which IMHO is sufficient (and would
>>>>>>>> essentially follow option b):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique values
>>>>>>>> and cannot overlap with any other return values returned by the
>>>>>>>> MPI implementation. Further, they shall be treated as MPI error
>>>>>>>> classes as defined in Chapter 8.4 and follow the same rules and restrictions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This would also make changes in the appendix unnecessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for making MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING callable
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> before
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Init (and then also after finalize), yes that would be very
>>>>>>>> useful, but is a general issue not only related to MPI_T. If we
>>>>>>>> decide this is too invasive at this point, I would like to see this at least in 3.1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> About 1. question:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I changed the headers of the three error code tables in the
>>>>>>>>> Annex according to Tables 8.1 and 8.2 from "Return codes"
>>>>>>>>> into "Error classes".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> svn r1505: I used also "Error classes" for the tools table svn
>>>>>>>>> r1507: I went back to the official ticket 266 text "Return
>>>>>>>>> codes"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Tools group should decide whether a. they want to stay
>>>>>>>>> with special return codes that are not part of the rule in
>>>>>>>>> Set. 8.4
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this case they should change "return code"
>>>>>>>>> into "error codes are returned" plus noting that the routine
>>>>>>>>> MPI_ERROR_STRING can be applied with the open question,
>>>>>>>>> whether MPI_EEROR_STRING can be applied before a call to
>>>>>>>>> MPI_INIT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Similar problem with failed MPI_INIT and analysing its
>>>>>>>>> returned error code:
>>>>>>>>> One needs at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING
>>>>>>>>> callable before MPI_INIT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> b. or you may use the same terminology as in Sect. 8.4, then
>>>>>>>>> new table 14.5 must show "Error classes".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this case you should integrate the MPI_T_ERR_...
>>>>>>>>> into the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE rule.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need at least MPI_ERROR_CLASS and MPI_ERROR_STRING
>>>>>>>>> callable before MPI_INIT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would prefer solution b together combined with the minimal
>>>>>>>>> solution for failed MPI_INIT, i.e., adding MPI_ERROR_CLASS and
>>>>>>>>> MPI_ERROR_STRING to the list of routines callable outside of
>>>>>>>>> MPI's initialization.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> About 2. question: MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT -_>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> svn r1506: done by Bronis in chap-tools/mpit.tex svn r1508:
>>>>>>>>> done by Rolf in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rolf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis at llnl.gov>
>>>>>>>>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list"
>>>>>>>>>> <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner at hlrs.de>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:03:44 PM
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rolf:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK, I am changing MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As said before, we need more opinions on the first question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bronis
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rolf:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Re:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Bronis, Martin, Dave, and Kathryn, (Profiling/Tools
>>>>>>>>>>>> chapter responsibles)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (you may forward this to the tools list - I'm not on that
>>>>>>>>>>>> list)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two important questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Alexander Supalov detected that we did it wrong:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The MPI_T_ERR_... list must be part of the total error list
>>>>>>>>>>>> and sorted in before MPI_ERR_LASTCODE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will change this in chap-appLang/appLang-Const.tex
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please look, if there must be some additional wording on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, the last sentence of Section 14.3.9
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique
>>>>>>>>>>>> values and cannot overlap with any other return values
>>>>>>>>>>>> returned by the MPI implementation."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above wording clearly states that the return values
>>>>>>>>>>> should be consistent with MPI_ERR_* return values. So,
>>>>>>>>>>> either the above wording needs to change (I do not see why
>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_* return values need to be distinct from
>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_ERR_* return values since the user should know that they
>>>>>>>>>>> were using an MPI_T_* function) or we need to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>> something like what you suggest.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need broader opinions to make the decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am concerned that wrapping up the document for MPI 3.0 has
>>>>>>>>>>> led to a fast and loose attitude about making broader
>>>>>>>>>>> changes "in order to get it done." This attitude can easily
>>>>>>>>>>> lead to suboptimal solutions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bronis
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> may be modified into
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ must be unique
>>>>>>>>>>>> values and cannot overlap with any other return values
>>>>>>>>>>>> returned by the MPI implementation and satisfy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... < MPI_T_ERR_... <=
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE <
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the MPI_ERR_LASTCODE and/or MPI_T_ERR_LASTCODE may
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> be also
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> repeated
>>>>>>>>>>>> in Table 14.5 as last entry, as done for the first value
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_SUCCESS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This proposal is based on Section 8.4, the sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The error codes satisfy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE: "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please confirm, that Alexander is right, please include me
>>>>>>>>>>>> in your discussion and please tell me your result that I
>>>>>>>>>>>> can do the correct changes in chap-appLang and you in
>>>>>>>>>>>> chap-tools.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Qeustion is less important; it is about naming:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander also noticed that your names do not fit to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> names used in the past:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT (we do not use
>>>>>>>>>>>> abbrevations)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOT_INIT (we do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> use
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> abbrevations)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In most cases, we do not combine words without underscore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I see, you can do the underscores.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Be sure to stay at maximum with 30 characters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Current longest MPI_T constants:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 123456789012345678901234567890
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_HIGHWATERMARK
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_PVAR_CLASS_LOWWATERMARK MPI_T_VERBOSITY_MPIDEV_DETAIL
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on this, I would stay with you names based on your
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_T
>>>>>>>>>>>> rule:
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_<structual-areas-with-underscores>_<final-name-withou
>>>>>>>>>>>> t-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> underscores>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e., I would only change
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> MPI_T_ERR_CANTINIT --> MPI_T_ERR_CANNOTINIT
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please tell me also your decision that I can do the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes in chap-appLang and you in chap-tools.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rolf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list
>>>>>>>>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>>> ___
>>>> __
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm
>>>>>>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>>> ___
>>>> __
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm
>>>>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
________________________________________________________________________
Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
Intel GmbH
Dornacher Strasse 1
85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer, Christian Lamprechter
Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456
Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052
More information about the mpi-forum
mailing list