[Mpi3-rma] RMA proposal 1 update

Underwood, Keith D keith.d.underwood at intel.com
Tue May 25 10:35:09 CDT 2010

> 1) We didn't straw-vote on MPI_Accumulate_get, so this function might
>    go. The removal would be very clean.

I'm with Rajeev on this one.  I don't see the point.  But, I think you knew that already ;-)
> 2) Should we allow MPI_NOOP in MPI_Accumulate (this does not make sense
>    and is incorrect in my current proposal)

Agreed - it doesn't make sense to me either.

> 3) Should we allow MPI_REPLACE in
> MPI_Get_accumulate/MPI_Accumulate_get?
>    (this would make sense and is allowed in the current proposal but we
>    didn't talk about it in the group)

Yes, we should allow MPI_REPLACE - where else do we get a plain swap instead of a compare-and-swap?


More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list