[Mpi-forum] Fortran change for discussion

[Richard Graham]

Yeah - I can see how this could confuse folks, so makes sense.

Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 2:18 PM
To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Fortran change for discussion

Jeremiah made the point that the text says that an MPI implementation behaves as if it makes a copy of the buffer.  He says that this implies that it trumps the "user can't modify a non-blocking sending buffer while the operation is ongoing" rule -- since the user can't modify the copy, it might be inferred that the user can go modify the original.

I think our text is weak but ok.  The clarification doesn't hurt, though.


On Sep 10, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Richard Graham wrote:

> Certainly,
>  However, if we can come to some agreement over e-mail, this might be better, so we can put the final doc before folks sooner rather than later.
>  I went back and read the two paragraphs that you mention - why is this additional clarification needed ?  I don't follow from the context, though the statement seems innocuous.
> 
> Rich
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org 
> [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff 
> Squyres
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:43 AM
> To: MPI Forum list
> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Fortran change for discussion
> 
> Rich --
> 
> Per Jeremiah Willcock's comments, we'd like to add one small clarifying paragraph to the Fortran section.  I think it's totally safe, but it's somehow intangibly above the "chapter author can add it himself" threshold for me.  Specifically: I think the current text is a little weak, but sufficient.  I'm therefore on the fence as to whether the text is *needed* in MPI-3.0 or whether it could be pushed to MPI next.
> 
> Can this be added to the agenda during the discussion of user comments for the MPI-3.0 draft 2?
> 
> Here's the specific proposal:
> 
>> I propose adding the following paragraph after the big paragraph in draft 2 p628:27-44:
>> 
>> Note that the above definition does not supercede restrictions about 
>> buffers used with non-blocking operations (e.g., those specified in 
>> Section~\ref{subsec:pt2pt-commstart}).
> 
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres at cisco.com
> For corporate legal information go to: 
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/


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