[mpiwg-rma] same_op_no_op

Balaji, Pavan balaji at anl.gov
Fri Mar 14 00:25:04 CDT 2014


I’ve written up these thoughts in the below ticket:


Comments are welcome on the ticket.

  — Pavan

On Mar 13, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji at anl.gov> wrote:

> On Mar 13, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It was not disallowed in MPI-2.  I meant that we made a mistake in MPI-3 to disallow it since that is not backward compatible.
>> You told me two days ago it was at best undefined, which is no more
>> useful than disallowed:
> I’m not sure what you are referring to, but that was no my intention.  Perhaps I misunderstood what you were asking.
> It think it’s pretty clear that it’s disallowed in MPI-3, not undefined.
>>> IMO, we should have kept the same semantics as MPI-2, but allowed the user to relax it with info arguments.
>> Well we broke backwards compatibility but made it almost impossible
>> for anyone to notice and certainly didn't add an advice to users so we
>> are clearly all jerks.
> I like MPI-2’s approach.  The data content is undefined, but not an error.
>  — Pavan
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list