[Mpi-forum] Status of vendor MPI 3.0 RMA implementations

[Jed Brown]

Dan Holmes <dholmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> What is the current status of MPI 3.0 RMA support in vendor implementations?
>
> Both MPICH and OpenMPI now claim full compliance. 

Does it count as "full compliance" if there are open bugs that prevent
large parts of the standard from being used?

https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/2656
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1905

The claim in 1905 is that memory corruption is experienced only if the
datatype description does not fit within the eager limit, though I
provided a test case in which an indexed block of size 1 fails.
These two bugs are still present in trunk:

http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2011/12/18045.php

It seems a stretch to claim "full" MPI-3 compliance when a major
component of MPI-2 RMA still does not work.  The user doesn't care
whether it is called "bug" or "incomplete implementation"; they can't
use the feature either way, though they might waste more time trying
when it is called a "bug".

Perhaps a test suite should be gathered so that we can start to automate
checking for implementation bugs/incomplete implementations.  Bugs
encountered in vendor implementations have been huge time sinks for a
number of colleagues and for myself.  This includes deadlock in
MPI_Bcast and MPI_Comm_split, within the past year.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20140324/33302d01/attachment-0001.pgp>