[Mpi3-hybridpm] Reminder for the hybrid telecon tomorrow

[Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)]

On May 2, 2013, at 12:23 AM, "Schulz, Martin" <schulzm at llnl.gov> wrote:

>> My overall point: if we start exploring the path of re-initialization
>> 
>> a) it could solve a lot of Jeff Hammond's originally-cited problems 
>> b) and a lot of the issues that stemmed from a)
>> c) we should make it allowable to stay initialized under the covers (i.e., a quality of implementation issue).
> 
> Agreed as well. I am actually not sure whether from a standard point of view we can actually distinguish whether an implementation stays initialized or not.

We can do whatever we want in the standard.  :-)

That being said, I agree that it would seem better to not mandate it one way or the other -- allow implementations to do whatever they want/need.

> What would it mean to not allow it?

Doves will cry?

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/