[Mpi3-abi] For the April MPI Forum Meeting

[Jeff Brown]

Just talked to our phone folks.  Our trunks are down in New Mexico - 
so this is a bust.  We are sort of a third world country out here.

I don't think we have time to reschedule at this point.

So ... if folks have the time please populate the matrix with your 
favorite MPI implementation and distribute to the group.  We'll get 
into the guts of all this at the meeting.

For my 5 minute briefing, I'll just show folks where we are and give 
a glimpse into the details.

ee you all at the meeting

Jeff

At 10:01 AM 4/24/2008, Terry Dontje wrote:
>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