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

[Jeff Hammond]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> 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

+= https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/4438

> 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".

Please, we all know that the following implementation of MPI is
compliant with 3.0 :-)

mpi.h:

#define MPI_VERSION 3
#define MPI_SUBVERSION 0
#define MPI_ //

ln -s /dev/null libmpi.a

> 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.

You mean like http://git.mpich.org/mpich.git/tree/HEAD:/test/mpi?

Jeff

-- 
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science at gmail.com