[Mpi3-rma] current version of proposal
dinan at mcs.anl.gov
Wed Mar 2 10:47:15 CST 2011
When we state that accumulates with the same operation are
non-conflicting, should I be interpreting this as CAS is only
non-conflicting with other CAS operations? This is a bit of a stretch
since CAS doesn't take an op argument, but I suppose it's doable. Some
text to help the reader make this connection for CAS would definitely help.
On 03/02/2011 10:30 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> I agree with most of the edits, but not the move from "accumulate
> operations" to "atomic operations". I understand the reluctance to call
> compare-and-swap an accumulate operation, but we used "accumulate
> operations" so that we wouldn't run into any semantic changes to the
> greater document. This was the same reason we didn't make rational
> overlap semantics for put/get. If we're going to change our minds and
> make the change to accumulate operations, but not change put/get
> semantics, that seems rather odd.
> On 3/1/11 1:54 PM, "James Dinan"<dinan at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I did a read through and attached my edits. I also scanned in the
>> edited document and typed up the edits so you don't have to interpret my
>> scribbled notes. I *think* there might have been one or two pages that
>> were flipped over when I scanned it, so keep an eye out.
>> A couple of those edits are non-trivial, so feel free to move anything
>> that should be discussed to the mailing list.
>> For example, I suggested merging MPI_Win_query into a window attribute -
>> we've remove the datatype and op from the call, so now it should work
>> cleanly as an attribute.
>> On 02/28/2011 03:43 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> I updated the version again (hopefully for a last time) with Brian's
>>> cleanup of the examples (Brian, I edited the style a bit). See
>>> All the Best,
More information about the mpiwg-rma