[mpiwg-tools] Too strict for flags in MPI_T_pvar_get_info?

Kathryn Mohror kathryn at llnl.gov
Tue Aug 26 10:45:57 CDT 2014

>> I suppose it doesn¹t change semantics, but possibly implementation of
>> tools and MPI libraries. I was under the impression that anything that
>> could change how a program that uses MPI is written couldn¹t be ticket
>Mmm.  Ok, fair enough.
>> For my part, I don¹t really think it¹s wrong to not use the same
>> convention as the rest of the MPI library for true and false. We don¹t
>>use the same string convention, after all.
>Strings are one thing, but booleans are a different (smaller) thing.
>I would think that now is the time to actually nip this inconsistency in
>the bud -- *while* people are initially writing all the MPI_T-based
>tools, etc.  Vs. someone else in the Forum (outside the Tools WG)
>noticing the inconsistency, insisting that we fix the inconsistency, and
>then we have the problem of lots of existing MPI_T tools that need to be
>updated / backwards-compatibility woes.
>It's a small thing; you've convinced me that it should be an errata
>ticket (vs. a ticket 0 change).  But it's a small/easy one.  And now is
>the time to do it.

Okay, then do we want to try for Japan to introduce it as errata? That
would mean we would need to get it finalized by basically this weekend. I
think Labor Day is the two week mark for introducing tickets. I would be
fine with that, but would need someone else to drive the ticket. I have a
busy week this week and wouldn¹t have the time to devote to it.

Any volunteers?

>Jeff Squyres
>jsquyres at cisco.com
>For corporate legal information go to:
>mpiwg-tools mailing list
>mpiwg-tools at lists.mpi-forum.org

More information about the mpiwg-tools mailing list