[Mpi3-hybridpm] INIT/FINALIZE, with corrections suggested by Darius

Jim Dinan dinan at mcs.anl.gov
Fri Feb 3 16:17:11 CST 2012

Right, that change wouldn't go in this ticket.  My question was more 
along the lines of: Is this something worthwhile in the broader MPI 
sense?  If so, I can create a ticket so we don't lose it.


On 2/3/12 2:48 PM, Pavan Balaji wrote:
> On 02/03/2012 02:36 PM, Jim Dinan wrote:
>> As long as we're updating this text, do we want to allow any additional
>> routines before MPI_Init/after MPI_Finalize (e.g. MPI_Wtime)?
> Why? The changes made so far are all addressing the limitations that
> need to be addressed for the endpoints proposal. They are not being made
> lightly. Adding MPI_WTIME is irrelevant for this.
> That could be a separate ticket if you like. But there's no reason to
> mix these two together.
> -- Pavan

More information about the mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list