[Mpi3-abi] For the April MPI Forum Meeting

[Terry Dontje]

I actually got in via the local number 505-606-1201.

Jeff is talking to the conference people now to see what is going on.

--td
Narasimhan, Kannan wrote:
> I get it too ....
>
> -Kannan-
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi3-abi-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-abi-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Terry Dontje
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:02 AM
> To: MPI 3.0 ABI working group
> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-abi] For the April MPI Forum Meeting
>
> Am I the only one getting an "all circuits are busy" message from the number below?
>
> --td
>
> Jeff Brown wrote:
>   
>> all,
>>
>> I scheduled a telecon to discuss status and get somewhat organized for
>> the meeting:
>>
>> Thursday April 24, 10:00 MDT
>> local number:      606-1201(6-1201)
>> toll free number:  888 343-0702.
>>
>> I'll send out some slides for the 5 minute briefing for the group.
>>
>> I'm having a hard time finding time to devote to this, but I'll have a
>> cut at the OpenMPI and LAMPI analysis prior to the telecon.  We need
>> someone to look at MPICH, and the vendor implementations need to be
>> posted.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> At 10:03 AM 4/16/2008, Jeff Brown wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Yes, it's time to put some cycles toward this.  Let's start
>>> populating the matrix and have a telecon toward the end of next week.
>>> I'll schedule a WG working session at the meeting.
>>>
>>> I'll take a look at OpenMPI and LAMPI, the two primary MPI
>>> implementations we use at LANL, and post to the wiki by the end of
>>> the week.  Others, please do the same for your MPI implementation
>>> (especially the vendors).  Overlap is OK.
>>>
>>> I'll send out specifics on the telecon.  Let's shoot for Thursday
>>> April 24, 9:00 A.M. MST.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> At 09:51 AM 4/16/2008, Narasimhan, Kannan wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Are we planning on a WG update to report at the April 28-30 Forum
>>>> meeting? We have started the process of identifying the mpi.h
>>>> differences, but I dont think we have synthesized the data yet, or
>>>> come to any conclusions/next steps... Or did I miss something here?
>>>>
>>>> Thanx!
>>>> Kannan
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: mpi3-abi-bounces_at_[hidden]
>>>> [mailto:mpi3-abi-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Edric
>>>> Ellis
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:18 AM
>>>> To: MPI 3.0 ABI working group
>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-abi] Meeting notes from 10th March
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how best to express this, but there are a couple of
>>>> things that occur to me that might be important:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The size of the handle types (cf. size of a pointer perhaps?)
>>>>
>>>> 2. should we add some sort of table describing the current situation
>>>> as to how applications pick up the value of e.g. MPI_COMM_WORLD? E.g.
>>>> MPICH2 uses "#define MPI_COMM_WORLD 0x44000000", so that value is
>>>> burned into the binary; whereas OpenMPI uses extern pointers - i.e.
>>>> ompi_mpi_comm_world is in the initialized data section of libmpi.so,
>>>> and the value resolved at (dynamic) link time.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Edric.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: mpi3-abi-bounces_at_[hidden]
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> [<mailto:mpi3-abi->mailto:mpi3-abi-
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Brown
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:11 PM
>>>>> To: MPI 3.0 ABI working group; mpi3-abi_at_[hidden]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-abi] Meeting notes from 10th March
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose a way we can make progress ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's start populating a matrix (excel spreadsheet) with a column
>>>>> for each MPI implementation, and rows for the various MPI
>>>>> datatypes, constants, etc. where the internal implementations
>>>>> varys.  I'll kick it off for OpenMPI and send out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The last column of the matrix can be "ABI" where we propose a
>>>>> common approach across the implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of driving principles:
>>>>> 1. the ABI solution shouldn't negatively impact quality of
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> implementation
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> 2. minimize platform specific solutions
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to see if we can produce a single ABI that spans platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mpi3-abi mailing list
>>>>> mpi3-abi_at_[hidden]
>>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpi3-abi mailing list
>>>> mpi3-abi_at_[hidden]
>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpi3-abi mailing list
>>>> mpi3-abi_at_[hidden]
>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpi3-abi mailing list
>>> mpi3-abi_at_[hidden]
>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpi3-abi mailing list
>> mpi3-abi_at_[hidden]
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-abi mailing list
> mpi3-abi_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-abi mailing list
> mpi3-abi_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi
>