[Mpi3-tools] Tools WG webex: tomorrow!
David Goodell (dgoodell)
dgoodell at cisco.com
Mon Jul 1 12:24:49 CDT 2013
On Jun 27, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres at cisco.com> wrote:
> The notes from todays meeting are now posted on the wiki:
Quoting from those notes:
> Marc-Andre asks: because of the Fortran debacle, and because tools will now have Fortran wrappers, should we do MPI_T for Fortran?
> • PRO: be able to call MPI_T directly from Fortran wrapper functions
> • CON: Jeff thinks we (tools WG) should stay out of Fortran
I agree with Jeff here. Anyone who is savvy enough to understand that a tools interface exists can also write their tool code in C. Getting a Fortran binding right will take a lot of work for very little benefit to anyone.
> • Jeff also brings up the idea of a callback (or some kind of MPI_T notification) to know when an MPI object is destroyed (per email conversation w/ Jeff, Kathryn, Martin).
> • Marc-Andre will think about whether it will be useful for any tools to know when MPI objects get destroyed.
> • Marc-Andre will also think about whether it would be useful for there to be an MPI_T mechanism to get some kind of unique ID for an MPI object (that will be durable after the handle is freed). This way, a tool can track the entire lifecycle of an object -- not just its handle.
I was unable to attend the call, but why isn't attaching an attribute with a destructor callback to the object in question sufficient? Is it because we have MPI opaque objects which do not support attributes (e.g., MPI_Op)?
More information about the mpiwg-tools