[Mpi3-rma] current version of proposal

James Dinan dinan at mcs.anl.gov
Sat Mar 5 10:14:53 CST 2011

On 03/04/2011 11:35 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote:
>>> 47:28 - why is "that use the same operation" being removed. It
>>> should be there.
>> no, this is now in the new info key. I added a sentence clarifying
>> this (and referencing back).
> OK. With that deletion, the chapter doesn't say anywhere whether
> concurrent overlapping accumulates with different operators are
> allowed or not. Or are they allowed only if one of the two operations
> is a no_op?
> And what is the default if the user doesn't pass any info key
> accumulate_ops? What should the implementation assume?

The new default for accumulate ordering is strict ordering.  I think
that as long as the same datatype is used, the result of concurrent
conflicting accumulate operations is defined as some atomic interleaving
at the datatype-level.


More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list