[Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
Rolf Rabenseifner
rabenseifner at hlrs.de
Tue Jul 24 02:44:06 CDT 2012
Martin Schulz wrote:
> [...] 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): [...]
> > 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:
> >>> Does anyone have different insight on error codes vs classes?
> On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:45 PM, Adam T. Moody wrote:
> > 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).
Dear all,
My proposal (repeated below) is exactly doing what you all want:
- the MPI_T_ERR_... codes are handled as fixed codes that need not
any further translation.
The MPI name for such codes is "error classes" and not
"return codes" or "error codes".
Normally, MPI routines do not return such "error classes".
They return "error codes" that need to be first translated
with MPI_ERROR_CLASS into an "error class" before you
can compare it with the well-known fixed numbers
as MPI_ERR_...
- Instead of adding (i.e., reinvent) a completely new set of
methods to handle MPI_T_ERR_... "return codes", it is more
useful to use the existing methods.
For this, we have to do four things:
a. guarantee that there is no value-overlap with other MPI_ERR_...
error classes (already done in your text),
b. guarantee that 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_...
(not done in your text, but intended by putting MPI_SUCCESS
on the first position of Table 14.5),
c. guarantee that
MPI_T_ERR_... <= MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
d. include MPI_T_ERR_... names into the list of error classes.
You did 25% of that list already:
a. is done, b. was intended but not done, c.+d. is missing.
- You never expected that there is a chance to get the error strings
for MPI_T_ERR_... codes from MPI_ERROR_STRING.
This is the only additional quality, my proposal will add.
Because you never expected this, it is no problem,
that this quality does not exist before MPI_INIT.
By the way, MPI_INIT (and all other routines that can be called
before MPI_INIT) can never return an error code
because you can never switch on ERROR_ON_RETURN before
MPI_INIT (it was my fault that I mentioned this non-existing
possibility in an earlier email).
With MPI-3.1, you can discuss with the Forum whether MPI_ERROR_STRING
(and MPI_ERROR_CLASS) should be callable already after MPI_T_INIT.
- I go with Adam's 2nd way, but there is no need to allow
MPI_ERROR_STRING and MPI_ERROR_CLASS before MPI_INIT
because the MPI_T_ interface is not intended to be visible for
the application, as stated in MPI-3.0 in Sect 14.3.9 by
"None of the return codes returned by an routine impact
the execution of the MPI process and do not invoke MPI
error handlers. ..."
Therefore, my question again, Kathrin, Bronis, Martin and Dave,
is it okay for you as chapter committee that we proceed with
this proposal:
-------------------------
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.
--------------------
As far as I understand, Martin is still convinced, that this
proposal is the best way to solve your problems.
Or do you really want to add a completely new set of
naming and methods for MPI_T_ERR_.. codes?
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: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:18:34 AM
> 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
>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm at llnl.gov>
> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:13:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
> Hi Kathryn, all,
>
> On Jul 23, 2012, at 1:05 PM, 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?
>
> That's more or less what the last proposal is - we have MPI_T return
> codes and those should be treated as MPI error classes. I guess we
> always refrained from calling them error classes or error codes since
> we put more constraints on them wrt. their influence on the overall
> execution and because we defined them more closely.
>
> > I think that MPI calls return codes and the codes are translated to
> > classes by the MPI_ERROR_CLASS function.
>
> That's not how it was intended. I agree, though, we didn't formulate
> this in the most optimal way.
>
> > 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?
>
> Yes, I agree - that's the intent of the big table at the end of the
> tools section - fixed return codes for each condition, such that one
> needs no translation. That's also why I like the currently proposed
> formulation of having MPI_T return codes that are (only) treated the
> same as MPI error classes. There were only two reasons why we stuck
> them at the end into the same number space as MPI error classes or
> codes: a) it should be possible to return an MPI_T error as a return
> value of an MPI function (e.g., if the call got intercepted using PMPI
> and the wrapper uses MPI_T) and b) it was consistent with shifting
> from MPIT (separate name space) to MPI as the prefix.
>
> 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-without-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> 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
--
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