[Mpi-forum] propose ABI working group

[Jeff Hammond]

I don't know what we do to create new working groups with the post-COVID
rules, but I would like to create and chair a WG focused on ABI
standardization.

There is strong support for this effort in many user communities, including
developers and maintainers of Spack, mpi4py, Julia MPI (MPI.jl), Rust MPI
(rsmpi), PETSc and NVHPC SDK, to name a few.  There are even a few
implementers who have expressed support, but I won't name them for their
own protection.

The problem is so exasperating for our users that there are at least two
different projects devoted to mitigating ABI problems (not including shims
built in to the aforementioned MPI wrappers):

https://github.com/cea-hpc/wi4mpi
https://github.com/eschnett/MPItrampoline

I've written about this a bit already, for those who are interested.  More
material will be forthcoming once I have time for more experiments.

https://github.com/jeffhammond/blog/blob/main/MPI_Needs_ABI.md
https://github.com/jeffhammond/blog/blob/main/MPI_Needs_ABI_Part_2.md
https://github.com/jeffhammond/blog/blob/main/MPI_Needs_ABI_Part_3.md
https://github.com/jeffhammond/blog/blob/main/MPI_Needs_ABI_Part_4.md

I understand this is a controversial topic, particularly for implementers.
I hope that we can proceed objectively.

Thanks,

Jeff

-- 
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science at gmail.com
http://jeffhammond.github.io/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20221116/f3c5adf2/attachment.html>