[mpiwg-rma] same_op_no_op

[Jim Dinan]

Should we also have an errata item to replace erroneous with undefined?

 ~Jim.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji at anl.gov> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-rma/attachments/20140314/dd11a5b7/attachment-0001.html>