[mpiwg-tools] Ticket 358
schulzm at llnl.gov
Tue Feb 3 23:17:04 CST 2015
I am still not convinced we need this, but if we find the right language I
am not opposed to it. Not sure, how we can write this the right way. This
gets fuzzy very easily. Do you have a suggestion?
Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
On 2/3/15, 8:37 AM, "Marc-Andre Hermanns" <m.a.hermanns at grs-sim.de> wrote:
>I just got a chance to talk to Rolf on this ticket:
>The reason for this ticket was that in ticket 453
>(https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/453), which passed
>as 3.0 errata, it is now explicitly allowed to declare functions in the
>MPI_ namespace, as long as the user wants to make use of the profiling
>The question now is, whether we should have a clarifying sentence in the
>profiling chapter to tell users of the interface not to tamper with the
>existing semantics of specific calls.
>Rolf understood that the current wording in the ticket may be too
>ristrictive, as it remains unclear what 'fully conforms' still allows.
>His suggestion was maybe a less restrictive wording, where tools like
>MPIEcho are still allowed.
>Jülich Aachen Research Alliance,
>High Performance Computing (JARA-HPC)
>German Research School for Simulation Sciences GmbH
>Phone: +49 241 80 99753
>Fax: +49 241 80 6 99753
>email: m.a.hermanns at grs-sim.de
More information about the mpiwg-tools