[Mpi-forum] Wording in MPI standard

[Bronis R. de Supinski]

Scott:

The problem with your suggestion is that completion
has a well defined meaning in MPI that requires the
completion call. If the receive completed without
any call then a subsequent attempt to complete it
would be an error. I believe that is reason the term
"satisfied" was used.

Bronis



On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Pavan Balaji wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>