[mpiwg-abi] MPI-5 ABI proposal

[Martin Schulz]

Hi all,

Regarding the version call: we also have the MPI_Get_library_version call, which has a similar intention. In fact, it is intended to be more strict than just the same ABI. Perhaps that is sufficient for the purpose here.

Martin


-- 
Prof. Dr. Martin Schulz, Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems 
Department of Informatics, TU-Munich, Boltzmannstraße 3, D-85748 Garching 
Member of the Board of Directors at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre (LRZ) 
Email: schulzm at in.tum.de 






On 24.01.23, 17:53, "mpiwg-abi on behalf of Christoph Niethammer" <mpiwg-abi-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:mpiwg-abi-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org> on behalf of niethammer at hlrs.de <mailto:niethammer at hlrs.de>> wrote:


Hi Dan, Heff,


I am not sure if I like the idea of having another possible header file for *library-only* backward compatibility.
>From a software installation perspective this looks like a nightmare to me to maintain in parallel. We are just getting rid of one header in Fortran currently. ;)


Regarding the issue Dan brought up:
I think it would be good to have at least a chance to check if MPI library and MPI header fit together.
One idea here would be to introduce a library routine "MPI_Abi_version()" that returns the API version
and having a macro constant MPI_ABI_VERSION in the header, that can be compared.


This will work for applications or a tool to test if the library is build against the same ABI.
However, it will not help a library to detect if an application was build with the matching MPI header. :/


Best,
Christoph


----- Original Message -----
From: "Holmes, Daniel John" <daniel.john.holmes at intel.com <mailto:daniel.john.holmes at intel.com>>
To: "Jeff Hammond" <jeff.science at gmail.com <mailto:jeff.science at gmail.com>>
Cc: mpiwg-abi at lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:mpiwg-abi at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 January, 2023 16:45:36
Subject: Re: [mpiwg-abi] MPI-5 ABI proposal


Hi Jeff,


Thanks - I looked through quickly - there's nothing outlandish it there, IMHO - seems sensible/modest.


Slide 9 question "both mpi.h and mpi_abi.h in same program?"


Do you mean "in the same translation unit" or "in different libraries linked together into a single binary" or something else?


I'm thinking that the World model encourages the user to pass a communicator from the place where MPI_INIT was called into each sub-program/library - there must be agreement between them on the type/value.


There are a bunch of what-if scenarios here: passing an MPI_Status from one place to another using a parameter/return value suggests your option 1 is the correct answer there (language copy would work).


Best wishes,
Dan.


From: mpiwg-abi <mpiwg-abi-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:mpiwg-abi-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond
Sent: 24 January 2023 15:01
To: mpiwg-abi at lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:mpiwg-abi at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Subject: [mpiwg-abi] MPI-5 ABI proposal


As requested, I have made a concrete proposal for the MPI-5 ABI.


https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cU9ewMUa7w3eaRVtfzov8NinyjzNSp5nF_peT92SE8I/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cU9ewMUa7w3eaRVtfzov8NinyjzNSp5nF_peT92SE8I/edit?usp=sharing>


Request edit access if you want to paint the bike shed with me.


Jeff


--
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science at gmail.com <mailto:jeff.science at gmail.com><mailto:jeff.science at gmail.com <mailto:jeff.science at gmail.com>>
http://jeffhammond.github.io/ <http://jeffhammond.github.io/>


-- 
mpiwg-abi mailing list
mpiwg-abi at lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:mpiwg-abi at lists.mpi-forum.org>
https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-abi <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-abi>
-- 
mpiwg-abi mailing list
mpiwg-abi at lists.mpi-forum.org <mailto:mpiwg-abi at lists.mpi-forum.org>
https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-abi <https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-abi>