[Mpi-forum] another request for iaccept

[William Gropp]

Part of that proposal must explain why using Accept in a separate thread (as suggested by this very post) isn’t sufficient.

Bill

William Gropp
Director, Parallel Computing Institute
Thomas M. Siebel Chair in Computer Science
Chief Scientist, NCSA
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign





On Feb 25, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:

> FWIW, I don't think the issue has been a lack of use cases. I think that the issue has been no one has been willing to create a proposal and shepherd it through. 
> 
> Sent from my phone. No type good. 
> 
>> On Feb 25, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Rob Latham <robl at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> Every 3-4 years I come across someone who wants to use a non-blocking accept, and the response is "the forum considered it but did not find a use case".   Here's another end-user wishing for an iaccept:
>> 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mpi4py/nSy17SavJnI/8EyfKT4-IAAJ
>> 
>> ==rob
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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