[Mpi3-rma] MPI-3 UNIFIED model clarification

Pavan Balaji balaji at mcs.anl.gov
Mon Jul 29 19:57:40 CDT 2013

On 07/29/2013 07:16 PM, Sur, Sayantan wrote:
> Sorry, but had to chuckle. This is something we voted in a year and a
> half ago, and we found out that we cannot implement it portably and
> already hate it so much that we want to deprecate it. Maybe we should
> wait a little while longer, and then we will want to bring back
> UNIFIED again.

Well, not quite.  If you see the first email in this chain, I mentioned 
that there was a misunderstanding in the WG.  Some people thought that 
UNIFIED meant what the current standard states, and some people thought 
that it meant what I'm suggesting for KIND_OF_UNIFIED.  So, in some 
sense, we voted on something not all of us wanted.

Also, just so someone doesn't use my statement out-of-context, I said 
that we can deprecate UNIFIED, assuming that there is another model like 

Finally, I'm not in favor of deprecating UNIFIED.  I just picked that as 
the preferred option compared to changing its semantics.

  -- Pavan

Pavan Balaji

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list