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.
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
More information about the mpiwg-rma