[Mpi-forum] Wording in MPI standard
balaji at mcs.anl.gov
Mon Nov 26 11:09:01 CST 2012
I'm not sure. I've cc'ed the list on this email.
On 11/26/2012 10:42 AM US Central Time, Scott Pakin wrote:
> 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
> -- Scott
> Attached Message
> Unclear wording in MPI spec
> Scott Pakin <pakin at lanl.gov>
> 11/19/2012 11:14 AM
> <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
> 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
More information about the mpi-forum