[Mpi3-bwcompat] Phone conf schedule?

[Jeff Squyres]

I didn't send the MPI_Timer stuff to Rich because I don't think it needs to be a gating feature of MPI-3.0.

On May 17, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Fab Tillier wrote:

> Solt, David George wrote on Tue, 17 May 2011 at 11:24:37
> 
>> One other cleanup point.   Rich requested:
>> 
>>> One more thing.  Those of you that have an item on the list (and those
>>> that are adding items) - please send me a 1-2 sentence explanation that
>>> we can use as a
>> description."
>> 
>> Has anyone sent him anything yet?
> 
> I sent him my 3 new items.  I don't know if Jeff sent him the timer stuff or not.
> 
>> I am open to working on other miscellaneous or backward compatibility
>> related issues.   I could schedule a one-time meeting to discuss our future
>> and then decide if we should continue with a re-occurring meeting?
> 
> Sure, that sounds good.  Same time as usual, this Friday?
> 
> -Fab
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Dave
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpi3-bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi3-
>> bwcompat-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Fab Tillier
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:17 PM
>> To: MPI-3 backwards compatability WG
>> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-bwcompat] Phone conf schedule?
>> 
>> Quincey Koziol wrote on Tue, 17 May 2011 at 11:09:15
>> 
>>> On May 17, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Fab Tillier wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The meeting request I had expired 4/15/2011.  Do we want to resume it?
>>>> 
>>>> Couple topics of interest, actually on topic for our working group: -
>>>> Removing deprecated functions (e.g. MPI_UB, MPI_LB, etc.) from MPI
>>>> 3.0.  They are still available via MPI 2.2 support, and an
>>>> implementation can easily provide concurrent support for MPI 2.2 and
>>>> MPI 3.0, should that be required. - Defining the C++ bindings as
>>>> optional in MPI 3.0.  This allows implementations that do not ship C++
>>>> bindings to be standard compliant. - Removing C++ bindings from MPI
>>>> 3.0.  This one goes counter to the previous one, but follows the same
>>>> logic as for the other deprecated functions.  If we don't provide C++
>>>> bindings for new MPI 3.0 functionality, we should remove them from MPI
>>>> 3.0.  They can still be supported via MPI 2.2 compliance.
>>> 
>>> 	Anything to discuss about const buffers?
>> 
>> We passed the first reading, so we're going for 1st vote at the next meeting.
>> There was one minor ticket0 wording change for the IN description, but
>> nothing major.  I don't think there's much to discuss at this point.
>> 
>>> 	I've got someone working on extensions to the datatype construction
>>> routines, creating a use case/justification for why we should add those
>>> routines to 3.0.  Adam Moody was going to create a ticket for those,
>>> once I give him this use case document.  [Dunno if we need to talk
>>> about anything yet on this though]
>> 
>> That would be nice to see.  Jeff and I are also working on the MPI Timer
>> request stuff, don't know if we want to discuss that in this working group, I'd
>> be up for it, I like this crowd...
>> 
>> -Fab
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Mpi3-bwcompat mailing
>> list Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list
>> Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mpi3-bwcompat mailing list
> Mpi3-bwcompat_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-bwcompat


-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/