[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:
>    https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/MPI3Tools/notes-2013-06-27

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 mailing list