[mpiwg-rma] Changes to the RMA chapter

Balaji, Pavan balaji at anl.gov
Thu Mar 5 09:19:17 CST 2015

Hi Rob,

> On Mar 5, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Rob Latham <robl at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 08:35 PM, Jim Dinan wrote:
>> I agree, no_locks seems to have a clear local semantic.  accumulate_ops
>> ad accumulate_ordering need some thought from the WG; I think these were
>> intended to be provided at all processes.
> if you are going to call it an MPI_Info, then please follow the rules of MPI_Info objects already well established in the I/O chapter.  all processes must specify the same value for a given MPI_Info key.

I didn't realize we say that in the MPI standard.  Can you point me to the location where it says that?

Pavan Balaji  ✉️

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list