[Mpi-forum] Wording in MPI standard

[Pavan Balaji]

Scott,

I'm not sure.  I've cc'ed the list on this email.

 -- Pavan

On 11/26/2012 10:42 AM US Central Time, Scott Pakin wrote:
> Pavan,
> 
> On 11/19/2012 11:59 PM, Pavan Balaji wrote:
>> > Thanks.  I didn't see the email come through, though.
> Do you know if email from non-subscribers gets silently dropped?
> 
> I attached the message I tried posting.  Want to try resending it
> yourself?  If not, I suppose I can subscribe, resend, then probably
> unsubscribe.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Scott
> 
> 
> Attached Message
> 
> Subject:
> Unclear wording in MPI spec
> From:
> Scott Pakin <pakin at lanl.gov>
> Date:
> 11/19/2012 11:14 AM
> 
> To:
> <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> 
> 
> From a discussion I had with Pavan Balaji at SC'12, I believe a minor
> wording change is needed in the MPI 3.0 standard, page 56, lines
> 30-35:
> 
>     Progress: A call to MPI_WAIT that completes a receive will
>     eventually terminate and return if a matching send has been
>     started, unless the send is satisfied by another receive. In
>     particular, if the matching send is nonblocking, then the receive
>     should complete even if no call is executed by the sender to
>     complete the send.  Similarly, a call to MPI_WAIT that completes a
>     send will eventually return if a matching receive has been
>     started, unless the receive is satisfied by another send, and even
>     if no call is executed to complete the receive.
> 
> Perhaps that should say, "...the receive *is required* to complete
> even if no call is executed...".
> 
> -- Scott

-- 
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji