[Mpi3-abi] ABI: for languages?

[Jeff Squyres]

Can we build a list of these to see how many packages actually *will*  
do what you assert?  (e.g., as opposed to software maintainers being  
entranced by the idea of possibly doing it)

I would strongly prefer to hear actual software maintainers publicly  
saying "yes, I will do this" instead of having someone else speak for  
them.

Not to be too untrusting, but there was a stellar example at the  
Dublin ABI meeting where person A said "trust me; I can speak for  
group XYZ", but later, group XYZ said exactly the opposite of what  
person A had previously asserted for them.

On Sep 12, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Greg Lindahl wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:17:45PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
>> If there are not -- if the majority are in the "we QA with
>> MPI's X, Y, and Z, and thou shallt not run with any other", then an  
>> ABI
>> is not worthwhile.
>
> We knew before we started that many ISVs had this opionion. But if
> they ever change their minds in the future, the ABI is useful to
> them. And when they go to test, the ABI saves them a recompile.
>
> The early adopters of the ABI will not be ISVs. It will be
> non-commercial people who want to ship pre-compiled application
> binaries, and who don't do much testing of individual MPIs or
> platforms anyway.  There are many free non-MPI scientific programs
> that distribute precompiled binaries. MPI app authors would like to do
> the same.
>
> -- greg
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-abi mailing list
> mpi3-abi_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-abi


-- 
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems