[mpiwg-rma] MPI RMA status summary

[Jeff Hammond]

My shared memory proposal will be #397 plus some.  I may split the
'plus some' into a second ticket if the WG encourages it.

I don't know if this answers your question, but I couldn't tell what
you meant by "first item" and the obvious guesses didn't make sense.

Jeff

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:46 AM, William Gropp <wgropp at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Thanks, Jeff.  I’ll update the note on 369.  Note that 359 is marked as
> passed but not closed; its probably one of the ones that can just be closed.
>
> Does your shared memory proposal subsume the first item?
>
> Bill
>
> On Sep 25, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Per the history therein,
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/369 passed the
> first vote in Chicago in June.  Why do you think it has been dropped?
>
> I thought https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/359
> passed but there's no clear evidence of this on the ticket.
>
> I previously updated
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi3-rma-agenda to
> reflect my intended activities:
>
> Draft Agenda for MPI-3 RMA Working Group: December 2014
>
> #396 - RMA needs new assertions for passive-target epochs. Current
> status (3/14): Add these assertions. Text needed.
> #397 - extend the use of MPI_WIN_SHARED_QUERY to all windows. Current
> status (3/14): Text proposed, straw vote 4/2/0.
> #401 - MPI_IN_PLACE in MPI_Get_accumulate
> #416 - MPI Accumulate operation restrictions
>
> In particular, I will have a relatively large proposal related to
> shared memory, which will be part of #397 (the scope of this ticket is
> evolving).
>
> Jeff
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:19 AM, William Gropp <wgropp at illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> I looked through all of the tickets and wrote a summary of the open issues,
> which I’ve attached.  I propose the following:
>
> Determine which of these issues can be resolved by email.  A significant
> number can probably be closed with no further action.
>
> For those requiring rework, determine if there is still interest in them,
> and if not, close them as well.
>
> For the ones requiring discussion, assign someone to organize a position and
> discussion.  We can schedule telecons to go over those issues.  The first
> item in the list is certainly in this class.
>
> Comments?
>
> Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Hammond
> jeff.science at gmail.com
> http://jeffhammond.github.io/
> _______________________________________________
> 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



-- 
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science at gmail.com
http://jeffhammond.github.io/