[Mpi3-rma] RMA proposal 1 update

[Torsten Hoefler]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:35:09AM -0600, Underwood, Keith D wrote:
> > 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 ;-)
You think you can convince me with constant repetition, huh? I am not
sure why we didn't straw-vote on this at the last meeting. I have no
objections to taking it out.

> > 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?
I obviously agree but we should give others a chance to comment on it at
the next meeting.

Thanks,
  Torsten

-- 
 bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ -----
Torsten Hoefler         | Research Associate
Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois
1205 W Clark Street     | Urbana, IL, 61801
NCSA Building           | +01 (217) 244-7736