[Mpi3-tools] Fwd: [MPI Forum] #228: MPIR Specification - An Official Companion Document for the MPI Standard

[Jeff Squyres]

Martin / John --

Can you comment on Alexander's comments?


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "MPI Forum" <mpi-22 at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> Date: October 7, 2010 7:16:50 AM EDT
> Subject: Re: [MPI Forum] #228: MPIR Specification - An Official Companion Document for the MPI Standard
> 
> #228: MPIR Specification - An Official Companion Document for the MPI Standard
> ---------------------------------------------------------+------------------
>                    Reporter:  schulzm                   |                       Owner:  jsquyres               
>                        Type:  Enhancements to standard  |                      Status:  new                    
>                    Priority:  Had 1st reading           |                   Milestone:  2010/10/11 Chicago, USA
>                     Version:  MPI 3.0                   |                    Keywords:                         
>              Implementation:  Unnecessary               |           Author_bill_gropp:  0                      
>          Author_rich_graham:  0                         |           Author_adam_moody:  0                      
>      Author_torsten_hoefler:  0                         |        Author_dick_treumann:  0                      
> Author_jesper_larsson_traeff:  0                         |       Author_george_bosilca:  0                      
>           Author_david_solt:  0                         |   Author_bronis_de_supinski:  0                      
>        Author_rajeev_thakur:  0                         |         Author_jeff_squyres:  0                      
>    Author_alexander_supalov:  0                         |    Author_rolf_rabenseifner:  0                      
> ---------------------------------------------------------+------------------
> 
> Comment(by asupalov):
> 
> We identified three possible issues in the current spec, see below.
> 
> 1. The proposal requires the VOLATILE macro to be defined (p.15, top).
> What happens if VOLATILE expands to nothing? How will the respective
> compiler understand that it should go down to the memory every time a
> variable is queried? Not our problem, but still. :)
> 
> 2. Intel MPI (and most likely MPICH2) has a bit different definition for
> MPIR_PROCDESC table (p.15, bottom).
> 
> Our defition:
> typedef struct MPIR_PROCDESC {
>     const char *host_name;
>     const char *executable_name;
>     int pid;
> } MPIR_PROCDESC;
> 
> Proposal:
> typedef struct MPIR_PROCDESC {
>     char *host_name;
>     char *executable_name;
>     int pid;
> } MPIR_PROCDESC;
> 
> Our definition seems to be more strict. I don't think this will cause any
> problem, but you may want to review this and allow for the above
> extension, as we'd not like to change the source code unless absolutely
> necessary.
> 
> 3. Same issue for MPIR_debug_state (p. 17, bottom).
> 
> Our definition:
> volatile int MPIR_debug_state
> 
> Proposal definition:
> int MPIR_debug_state
> 
> This may be material, as the MPIR_debug_state is set by the program and
> inspected by the tool. We should probably add VOLATILE to the proposal.
> 
> -- 
> Ticket URL: <https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/228#comment:3>
> MPI Forum <https://svn.mpi-forum.org/>
> MPI Forum


-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/