[mpiwg-p2p] Next meeting: 13th April 2015 11am Central US

[Daniel Holmes]

Hi All,

The next point-to-point teleconference will be today, Monday 13th April 
2015 at 11am Central US via webex.

Connection details are on the point-to-point wiki page:
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/PtpWikiPage

Agenda:
0) Discuss/agree the to-do list (see below) that covers the next two 
agenda items.
1) "Can INFO keys change the semantic behaviour of MPI?" issue - 
following the discussion at the face-to-face meeting, we seem to have a 
workable way forward on this issue!
2) New communicator INFO keys - it looks like these will be allowed, so 
we should define a few and get a proposal ready for the next 
face-to-face meeting
3) Progress on Arecv and Fsend or ReceiveReduce?
4) Other stuff?

Cheers,
Dan.

> Hi All,
>
> At the last telco meeting, Jim asked for a to-do list of the tasks 
> needed to move communicator assertions forward. Please find below a 
> first draft of such a task list. Could we agree that this is a good 
> list? If you see something odd/missing, reply to this email group.
>
> _To-do list for communicator assertions__
> _
> 0) Gather evidence to support "no-one will be affected by backwards 
> incompatibility".
>    (e.g. chase Pavan, who volunteered to do this for major MPICH users)
> 1) Change behaviour of MPI_COMM_DUP so that INFO keys are *not* 
> propagated to new comm.
>    (include AtoU: if you want to dup INFO use MPI_COMM_DUP_WITH_INFO, 
> with example)
> 2) Discuss whether attributes (plus, anything else?) should be 
> propagated by MPI_COMM_DUP.
>    (default presumption is yes, they should still be propagated).
> 3) Find all occurrence of language in the MPI Standard that suggests 
> INFO keys are hints.
> a) Change or remove any generic statements like "INFO keys cannot 
> change semantics".
>    (e.g. change to "cannot change observable semantics" or remove)
> b) For each occurrence, determine if it should continue to suggest 
> hint status
>    (e.g. a particular key, most likely for the I/O keys but maybe also 
> some RMA keys)
>
> A) Convert ticket 381 into "make comm assertions doable" proposal (by 
> Jun 2015 - Chicago?)
> B) Get "no wildcard" INFO keys proposal ready for formal reading (by 
> Jun 2015 - Chicago?)
> C) Get "no ordering" INFO key proposal ready for formal reading (by 
> Jun 2015 - Chicago?)
> D) Get "no cancel" INFO keys proposal ready for formal reading (by Jun 
> 2015 - Chicago?)
> E) Discuss other INFO key proposals, e.g. "only wildcard", "no 
> non-blocking", "no underflow"
>
> Cheers,
> Dan.

-- 
Dan Holmes
Applications Consultant in HPC Research
EPCC, The University of Edinburgh
James Clerk Maxwell Building
The Kings Buildings
Peter Guthrie Tait Road
Edinburgh
EH9 3FD
T: +44(0)131 651 3465
E: dholmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk

*Please consider the environment before printing this email.*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-p2p/attachments/20150413/41641a20/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-p2p/attachments/20150413/41641a20/attachment.ksh>