[Mpi-forum] Question about the semantics of MPI_Comm_disconnect

[George Bosilca]

On Nov 13, 2013, at 01:09 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:55 PM, George Bosilca <bosilca at icl.utk.edu> wrote:
> 
>> It is a sentence inherited from MPI 1, and it made sense in a world dominated by pt2pt.
> 
> Sure, I assumed that.  :-)
> 
>> It is very literal and it does not apply “as it” to all concepts in the __current__ standard, but the intent is remain clear:  prevent any form of unexpected messages.
> 
> I understand that it is desirable to be vague in some places.  But this is not a case of being vague: it's a case of being *wrong*.  And it should therefore be fixed.

The challenge here was to explain a concept without referring to the notion of “unexpected” messages as it is lacking from the standard. I guess any reasonable user would understand that files must be closed, windows must be synchronized, but for pt2pt things are different because two sides are involved. Marking them as complete is only enough on one side, they should be matched in the other in order to really disappear. Thus, completed and matched make sense …

Anyway, if you propose to replace this text with the one Rajeev mentioned in his email (from MPI_Finalize), I guess is a good solution.

  George.


> 
> -- 
> 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