[Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
Rolf Rabenseifner
rabenseifner at hlrs.de
Wed Jul 25 07:40:15 CDT 2012
Bronis, Martin, Adam, Kathryn, Dave, and all,
Okay, now I understand - I thought Martin's arguments were okay
for shortening the text - but the original long form is more
consistent.
Can we therefore agree on the text below.
It is the text from Bronis plus Adams rationale plus the other
changes from the original mail.
I would like to have enough okays.
------------------------------
| Changed and new text is marked with a bar.
-------------------------
1) Sect 14.3.9 "Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface"
reads
All functions defined as part of the MPI tool information interface
return an integer return code (see Table 14.5) to indicate whether
the function was completed successfully or was aborted. In the
latter case the return code indicates the reason for not completing
the routine. None of the return codes returned by an routine
impact the execution of the MPI process and do not invoke MPI error
handlers. The execution of the MPI process continues as if the
call would have completed. However, the MPI implementation
is not required to check all user provided parameters; if a user
passes invalid parameter values to any routine the behavior of
the implementation is undefined.
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 functions defined as part of the MPI tool information interface
return an integer return code (see Table 14.5) to indicate whether
the function was completed successfully or was aborted. In the
latter case the error class indicates the reason for not completing
the routine. None of the error classes returned by an routine
impact the execution of the MPI process and do not invoke MPI error
handlers. The execution of the MPI process continues as if the
call would have completed. However, the MPI implementation
is not required to check all user provided parameters; if a user
passes invalid parameter values to any routine the behavior of
the implementation is undefined.
| All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ are error codes. They must be
| unique values and cannot overlap with any other error codes or 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. In particular, they must satisfy:
|
| 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE.
|
| Rationale:
| All MPI tool information interface functions must return error classes,
| because applications cannot portably call MPI_ERROR_CLASS before
| MPI_INIT or MPI_INIT_THREAD to map an arbitrary error code to an error
| class. End of rationale.
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.
------------------------------
Best regards
Rolf
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis at llnl.gov>
> To: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner at hlrs.de>
> Cc: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm at llnl.gov>, "Kathryn Mohror" <mohror1 at llnl.gov>, "Dave Goodell" <goodell at mcs.anl.gov>,
> "Adam T. Moody" <moody20 at llnl.gov>, "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:07:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
> Rolf:
>
> Hmm. Aoparently you did not follow. I do not agree to
> Martin's change to my suggested wording. I think
> stating that they return error classes is confusing
> and not consistent with Section 8.4. That section states:
>
> ------------------
>
> The error codes returned by MPI are left entirely to the
> implementation
> (with the exception of MPI_SUCCESS). This is done to allow an
> implementation
> to provide as much information as possible in the error code (for use
> with
> MPI_ERROR_STRING).
>
> To make it possible for an application to interpret an error code, the
> routine MPI_ERROR_CLASS converts any error code into one of a small
> set of
> standard error codes, called error classes. Valid error classes are
> shown
> in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2.
>
> ------------------
>
> This passage clearly states that all MPI routines return error codes
> (as
> is consistent with correct design). To obtain an error code, one MUST
> use MPI_ERROR_CLASS. Martin's change incorrectly makes MPI_T functions
> return error classes. My wording instead has them return error codes,
> consistent with existing practice. My wording merely states that they
> are ALSO error classes.
>
> As stated previously, I object to Martin's incorrect simplification,
> which was the cause of the confusion that generated significant
> discussion on this topic. We should not codify it.
>
> Bronis
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:
>
> > Martin, Kathryn, Bronis, Dave, Adam, and all,
> >
> > I try to sum up the current proposed text change.
> > I hope I caught all your proposed text changes.
> >
> > If I understand correctly,
> > then there is no further objection and the whole
> > tools chapter committee is in favor to do this change.
> >
> > My review: I is now fully consistent with the existing
> > MPI error handling and fulfills all needs of
> > the MPI_T_ routines.
> >
> > Please give your okay as soon as possible.
> >
> > As soon as I get the final okay from you all,
> > I'll execute the change in one consistent svn step in tools and
> > appLang.
> >
> > -------------------------
> > | Changed and new text is marked with a bar.
> > -------------------------
> > 1) Sect 14.3.9 "Return Codes for the MPI tool information interface"
> > reads
> >
> > All functions defined as part of the MPI tool information
> > interface
> > return an integer return code (see Table 14.5) to indicate whether
> > the function was completed successfully or was aborted. In the
> > latter case the return code indicates the reason for not
> > completing
> > the routine. None of the return codes returned by an routine
> > impact the execution of the MPI process and do not invoke MPI
> > error
> > handlers. The execution of the MPI process continues as if the
> > call would have completed. However, the MPI implementation
> > is not required to check all user provided parameters; if a user
> > passes invalid parameter values to any routine the behavior of
> > the implementation is undefined.
> >
> > 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 functions defined as part of the MPI tool information
> > interface
> > | return an MPI error class, as defined in Table 14.5, to indicate
> > | whether
> > the function was completed successfully or was aborted. In the
> > latter case the error class indicates the reason for not
> > completing
> > the routine. None of the error classes returned by an routine
> > impact the execution of the MPI process and do not invoke MPI
> > error
> > handlers. The execution of the MPI process continues as if the
> > call would have completed. However, the MPI implementation
> > is not required to check all user provided parameters; if a user
> > passes invalid parameter values to any routine the behavior of
> > the implementation is undefined.
> >
> > | All MPI error classes with the prefix MPI\_T\_ must be unique
> > | values
> > | and cannot overlap with any other error codes or error
> > | classes returned by the MPI implementation and must follow
> > | the same rules and restrictions laid out in Chapter 8.4. In
> > | particular,
> > | they must satisfy:
> > |
> > | 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE.
> > |
> > | Rationale:
> > | All MPI tool information interface functions must return error
> > | classes,
> > | because applications cannot portably call MPI_ERROR_CLASS before
> > | MPI_INIT or MPI_INIT_THREAD to map an arbitrary error code to an
> > | error
> > | class. End of rationale.
> >
> > 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.
> > --------------------
> >
> > Best regards
> > Rolf
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" <bronis at llnl.gov>
> >> To: "Martin Schulz" <schulzm at llnl.gov>
> >> Cc: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:15:59 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
> >> Martin:
> >>
> >> Because using the error classes wording is what caused
> >> the original confusion. Further, your wording precludes
> >> ever allowing an implementation to extend the return codes.
> >>
> >> Frankly, your opinion is that calling them error classes
> >> is less confusing but we have already seen that experts
> >> are confused by that.
> >>
> >> As to your second suggestion, it would be simpler if you
> >> showed just the change to make it clearer that it is just
> >> a ticket 0 change instead of asking people to wade through
> >> the comparison of two lengthy passages.
> >>
> >> Bronis
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Schulz, Martin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Bronis,
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 25, 2012, at 12:19 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin:
> >>>>
> >>>> You are incorrect. The text in 8.4 explicitly states that
> >>>> all error classes are error codes. My text was straightforward
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's what I said as well. Error classes are a subset of
> >>> error
> >>> codes.
> >>>
> >>>> and not as long and awkward as your suggestion that attempts
> >>>
> >>> In the first suggestion I just replaced one word and then cut
> >>> duplicate text (the new version is shorter) - your text said that
> >>> all return codes are error codes and I still think this is not
> >>> quite
> >>> correct or at least ambiguous. We are defining their values with
> >>> constants in the Table, something that we can't do for error codes
> >>> that are not classes. Hence, I just suggested to replace "All
> >>> return
> >>> codes with the prefix MPI_T_ are error codes." with "All return
> >>> codes with the prefix MPI_T_ are error classes.". Otherwise we are
> >>> first saying that return codes can be (arbitrary) error codes, but
> >>> then we state they should behave as classes. Why not say they are
> >>> classes from the beginning?
> >>>
> >>>> to make a non-existent distinction. I vote for Adam's suggested
> >>>> rationale that extended my wording.
> >>>
> >>> In the second suggestion, I was actually trying to get rid of the
> >>> term MPI_T return codes, since this has caused the confusion. I
> >>> think this is cleaner (and the text overall is actually shorter -
> >>> I
> >>> just quoted the whole subsection 14.3.9 for context). The text is
> >>> itself is virtually unchanged from the approved ticket. However, I
> >>> have said that I am fine with either version.
> >>>
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Bronis
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Schulz, Martin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I agree with Adam's rational - that is a good addition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, I don't think the last proposal (which was, I believe
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> Bronis's email)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ are error codes. They
> >>>>>> must be
> >>>>>> unique values and cannot overlap with any other error codes
> >>>>>> or
> >>>>>> 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. In particular, they must
> >>>>>> satisfy:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> is consistent with 8.4 (although that chapter is not quite
> >>>>> consistent in itself, but that's a different issue). If we want
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> fully embed the MPI_T return codes into the MPI error class/code
> >>>>> terminology (which I agree with), then MPI_T return codes are
> >>>>> not
> >>>>> error codes, but classes, since we are defining their values.
> >>>>> Codes that are not classes are left to the implementation. 8.4
> >>>>> also states that MPI routines can return classes and that
> >>>>> classes
> >>>>> are a subset of codes. Hence, I think the following is correct:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ are error classes. They
> >>>>>> must be
> >>>>>> unique values and cannot overlap with any other error codes or
> >>>>>> error
> >>>>>> classes returned by the MPI implementation. Further, they shall
> >>>>>> follow
> >>>>>> the same rules and restrictions as defined in Chapter 8.4. In
> >>>>>> particular,
> >>>>>> they must satisfy:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, this is starting to get awkward and repetitive. Hence,
> >>>>> we
> >>>>> may want to rewrite 14.3.9 as follows:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Old text (currently in approved for 14.3.9):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All functions defined as part of the MPI tool information
> >>>>>> interface
> >>>>>> return an integer return code (see Table 14.5) to indicate
> >>>>>> whether
> >>>>>> the function was completed successfully or was aborted. In the
> >>>>>> latter case the return code indicates the reason for not
> >>>>>> completing
> >>>>>> the routine. None of the return codes returned by an routine
> >>>>>> impact the execution of the MPI process and do not invoke MPI
> >>>>>> error
> >>>>>> handlers. The execution of the MPI process continues as if the
> >>>>>> call would have completed. However, the \MPI/ implementation
> >>>>>> is not required to check all user provided parameters; if a
> >>>>>> user
> >>>>>> passes invalid parameter values to any routine the behavior of
> >>>>>> the implementation is undefined.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> New suggested text:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All functions defined as part of the MPI tool information
> >>>>>> interface
> >>>>>> return an MPI error class, as defined in Table 14.5, to
> >>>>>> indicate
> >>>>>> whether
> >>>>>> the function was completed successfully or was aborted. In the
> >>>>>> latter case the error class indicates the reason for not
> >>>>>> completing
> >>>>>> the routine. None of the error classes returned by an routine
> >>>>>> impact the execution of the MPI process and do not invoke MPI
> >>>>>> error
> >>>>>> handlers. The execution of the MPI process continues as if the
> >>>>>> call would have completed. However, the MPI implementation
> >>>>>> is not required to check all user provided parameters; if a
> >>>>>> user
> >>>>>> passes invalid parameter values to any routine the behavior of
> >>>>>> the implementation is undefined.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All MPI error classes with the prefix MPI\_T\_ must be unique
> >>>>>> values
> >>>>>> and cannot overlap with any other error codes or error
> >>>>>> classes returned by the MPI implementation and must follow
> >>>>>> the same rules and restrictions laid out in Chapter 8.4. In
> >>>>>> particular,
> >>>>>> they must satisfy:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rationale:
> >>>>>> All MPI tool information interface functions must return error
> >>>>>> classes,
> >>>>>> because applications cannot portably call MPI_ERROR_CLASS
> >>>>>> before
> >>>>>> MPI_INIT or MPI_INIT_THREAD to map an arbitrary error code to
> >>>>>> an
> >>>>>> error
> >>>>>> class.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can go either way (just making the minor change mention above
> >>>>> and adding Adam's rational) or with the larger adjustment. I
> >>>>> believe those two are semantically equivalent.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Martin
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 24, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Mohror, Kathryn wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I am in favor of adding Adam's rationale.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rationale:
> >>>>>>> All MPI tool information interface functions must return error
> >>>>>>> classes,
> >>>>>>> because applications cannot portably call MPI_ERROR_CLASS
> >>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>> MPI_INIT or MPI_INIT_THREAD to map an arbitrary error code to
> >>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>> error
> >>>>>>> class.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Kathryn
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-
> >>>>>>> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Adam T. Moody
> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:23 AM
> >>>>>>> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and
> >>>>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we are all converging, but there is one point that I
> >>>>>>> wanted to
> >>>>>>> bring up:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can one call ERROR_CLASS/STRING before MPI_INIT?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The current standard doesn't allow this, since
> >>>>>>> ERROR_CLASS/STRING are
> >>>>>>> not in the list of functions that one can call before INIT.
> >>>>>>> However,
> >>>>>>> Rolf pointed out that the previous standard didn't need to
> >>>>>>> allow
> >>>>>>> this,
> >>>>>>> because there is no way to replace the default error handler
> >>>>>>> (which is
> >>>>>>> that errors are fatal) until after INIT. Thus, if one of these
> >>>>>>> functions throws an error before INIT, it triggers the
> >>>>>>> ERRORS_ARE_FATAL
> >>>>>>> handler and never returns.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, since MPI_T_ errors do not kick off the error
> >>>>>>> handlers,
> >>>>>>> now we
> >>>>>>> have the case where error codes can be returned before
> >>>>>>> MPI_INIT.
> >>>>>>> However, again, since ERROR_CLASS/STRING are not in the list
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> functions that one can call before INIT, it is implied that
> >>>>>>> users cannot
> >>>>>>> call these functions until after MPI_INIT. It would be nice to
> >>>>>>> add a
> >>>>>>> rationale statement along these lines to the latest proposed
> >>>>>>> text, e.g.:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ are error codes. They
> >>>>>>> must be
> >>>>>>> unique values and cannot overlap with any other error codes or
> >>>>>>> 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. In particular, they must
> >>>>>>> satisfy:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rationale:
> >>>>>>> All MPI tool information interface functions must return error
> >>>>>>> classes,
> >>>>>>> because applications cannot portably call MPI_ERROR_CLASS
> >>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>> MPI_INIT or MPI_INIT_THREAD to map an arbitrary error code to
> >>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>> error
> >>>>>>> class.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note the above is more restrictive than it needs to be, since
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> seems
> >>>>>>> that we could allow MPI_T to return arbitrary error codes
> >>>>>>> *after*
> >>>>>>> MPI_INIT. However, it seems we're already imposing the
> >>>>>>> restriction that
> >>>>>>> they always return error classes.
> >>>>>>> -Adam
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mohror, Kathryn wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I see the meaning of classes and codes now. I was a bit
> >>>>>>>> confused by the
> >>>>>>> wording in 8.4. I still think it's a bit weird that everywhere
> >>>>>>> else in the standard,
> >>>>>>> the codes returned need to be converted to classes to get a
> >>>>>>> portable
> >>>>>>> understanding of the error, but in MPI_T we will return
> >>>>>>> classes,
> >>>>>>> so the meaning
> >>>>>>> is already known without conversion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> However, that said, Bronis' wording of Rolf's suggested
> >>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>> seems to
> >>>>>>> make that distinction clearer. I am okay with Bronis' text:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> All return codes with the prefix MPI_T_ are error codes.
> >>>>>>>>> They
> >>>>>>>>> must be
> >>>>>>>>> unique values and cannot overlap with any other error codes
> >>>>>>>>> or 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. In particular, they must
> >>>>>>>>> satisfy:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 0 = MPI_SUCCESS < MPI_T_ERR_... \leq MPI_ERR_LASTCODE.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Kathryn
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >>>>>>>>> [mailto:mpi-forum-
> >>>>>>>>> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of William Gropp
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:31 AM
> >>>>>>>>> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI-3: MPI_T_ERR_... and
> >>>>>>>>> MPI_ERR_LASTCODE
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> MPI error codes, combined with MPI_Error_string, permit an
> >>>>>>>>> MPI
> >>>>>>>>> implementation to return a instance-specific and detailed
> >>>>>>>>> error message.
> >>>>>>> Error
> >>>>>>>>> classes, like Unix error codes, have only slightly more
> >>>>>>>>> information that
> >>>>>>>>> "something went wrong".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Because MPI error classes are error codes, its possible to
> >>>>>>>>> return the error
> >>>>>>> class;
> >>>>>>>>> this can be used before Init and after Finalize now. But
> >>>>>>>>> between Init and
> >>>>>>>>> Finalize, codes permit but do not require an implementation
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> return more
> >>>>>>>>> helpful information. I see no reason to require the MPI_T
> >>>>>>>>> interface to be
> >>>>>>> less
> >>>>>>>>> user-friendly than the rest of the MPI interface. However,
> >>>>>>>>> leaving this for
> >>>>>>> 3.1
> >>>>>>>>> might make sense.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Bill
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> William Gropp
> >>>>>>>>> Director, Parallel Computing Institute
> >>>>>>>>> Deputy Director for Research
> >>>>>>>>> Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and
> >>>>>>>>> Technologies
> >>>>>>>>> Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science
> >>>>>>>>> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:05 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? 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________________________________________________
> >>> 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)
> >
--
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