[mpiwg-rma] same_op_no_op

[Jeff Hammond]

The ticket is exactly what I want. 

Thanks

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 14, 2014, at 12:25 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