[mpiwg-hybridpm] Changes to the EI chapter

Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) jsquyres at cisco.com
Tue Mar 3 17:42:45 CST 2015

On Mar 3, 2015, at 2:56 PM, George Bosilca <bosilca at icl.utk.edu> wrote:
> This change is a direct effect of the #357 ticket (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/357), that has been discussed and had received a successful vote (18 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain).
> Removing this particular part of the paragraph does not clarify all conflicts of this section. Few lines above there is an even bolder statement claiming that "Therefore, \MPI/ implementations are not required to be thread compliant as defined in this section." So to thread or not to thread?
> My understanding is that "implementation that do not support threads" are not referring to implementations that solely provide support for MPI_THREAD_SERIALIZED,

Where is that defined?  This is a question that came out of the forum: "What exactly does it mean to 'not support threads'?  Every process has at least one thread."

>  but to implementations that have no thread support at all (they don't even link against pthreads).

Not linking against pthreads doesn't mean anything -- every process still has at least 1 thread.

> Forcing such an implementation to provide thread safety for a handful of functions is unreasonable.

That was the whole point of the ticket: these functions are *always* thread safe.

...which is what Jeff Hammond wanted.  :-)

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

More information about the mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list