[mpiwg-tools] Ticket 383: Variables with the same name ticket

[Kathryn Mohror]

Hi all,

I have updated the chapter PDF based on my notes from the last meeting I
attended (10/2). The basic change was to make it clear what the contents
of desc and desc_len should be in the _get_info routines for control and
performance variables across connected processes.

I left out changes that we discussed regarding maximum string lengths,
because from the email list it looks like you all decided that that issue
should be a separate ticket (with which I whole-heartedly agree).

So, please have a look at it if you can before our meeting on Thursday. I
know you're busy with SC preparations, but it's only two small changes!
You have time! :-)

Kathryn
_________________________________________________________________
Kathryn Mohror, kathryn at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
Scalability Team @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA,
USA






On 8/31/14, 3:07 PM, "Schulz Martin" <schulzm at llnl.gov> wrote:

>Hi Kathryn,
>
>The text misses the INOUT/OUT instead of just OUT on page 34, line 10,
>otherwise this looks good to me.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Martin
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
>CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
>
>
>
>
>
>On 8/30/14, 4:44 PM, "Kathryn Mohror" <kathryn at llnl.gov> wrote:
>
>>Hi Martin,
>>
>>Thanks for the feedback. I incorporated it and attached the new copy.
>>
>>Anyone else have comments?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>Kathryn
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Kathryn Mohror, kathryn at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
>>Scalability Team @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA,
>>USA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 8/30/14, 1:22 AM, "Schulz Martin" <schulzm at llnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Kathryn, all,
>>>
>>>Thanks for putting this together. I think, this looks almost right. Just
>>>the string returns are not quite right, I think. What about adding the
>>>following:
>>>
>>>
>>>Page 15:
>>>	
>>>		
>>>		
>>>	
>>>	
>>>		
>>>			
>>>				
>>>					If the name of a control variable is the same across connected
>>>processes, the following OUT parameters must be identical: verbosity,
>>>datatype, enumtype, desc, desc_len, bind, scope.
>>>->
>>>If the name of a control variable is the same across connected
>>>processes,
>>>the following INOUT/OUT parameters must be identical: verbosity,
>>>datatype,
>>>enumtype, desc, desc_len, bind, scope (assuming identical values are
>>>passed in desc_len).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Same on page 24:
>>>If the name and class of a performance variable are the same across
>>>connected processes,
>>>the following OUT parameters must be identical: verbosity, varclass,
>>>datatype, enumtype,
>>>desc, desc_len, bind, readonly, continuous, atomic.
>>>->
>>>				
>>>			
>>>		
>>>	
>>>If the name and class of a performance variable are the same across
>>>connected processes,
>>>the following INOUT/OUT parameters must be identical: verbosity,
>>>varclass,
>>>datatype, enumtype,
>>>desc, desc_len, bind, readonly, continuous, atomic (assuming identical
>>>values are passed in desc_len).
>>>
>>>
>>>Same on page 34
>>>
>>>	
>>>		
>>>		
>>>	
>>>	
>>>		
>>>			
>>>				
>>>					If the name of a category is the same across connected processes,
>>>the
>>>following OUT
>>>parameters must be identical: desc, desc_len.
>>>->
>>>If the name of a category is the same across connected processes, the
>>>following INOUT/OUT
>>>parameters must be identical: desc, desc_len (assuming identical values
>>>are passed in desc_len).
>>>
>>>
>>>Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>				
>>>			
>>>		
>>>	
>>>
>>>
>>>				
>>>			
>>>		
>>>	
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>				
>>>			
>>>		
>>>	
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>				
>>>			
>>>		
>>>	
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________________________________________________
>>>Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
>>>CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 8/29/14, 6:10 PM, "Kathryn Mohror" <kathryn at llnl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>Here¹s a draft of the tools chapter with changes for ticket #383 based
>>>>on
>>>>our last discussion. Let¹s see if we can get this nailed down to read
>>>>in
>>>>Japan.
>>>>
>>>>Please see the attached, and keep in mind that the due date for ticket
>>>>announcements is MONDAY!
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Kathryn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>Kathryn Mohror, kathryn at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
>>>>Scalability Team @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
>>>>CA,
>>>>USA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>mpiwg-tools mailing list
>>>mpiwg-tools at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-tools
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpiwg-tools mailing list
>mpiwg-tools at lists.mpi-forum.org
>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-tools

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tools-3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 327319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-tools/attachments/20141111/7d5500ec/attachment.pdf>