[mpiwg-rma] same_op_no_op

[Balaji, Pavan]

All,

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

https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/416

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