From: "Bronis R. de Supinski" Date: January 31, 2008 5:36:58 AM CST To: "Mailing list for discussion of MPI 2.1" Subject: Re: [mpi-21] Ballot 4 - Re: Request for interpretation Reply-To: "Bronis R. de Supinski" for discussion of MPI 2.1" Rolf: Your new wording works for me. Bronis On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > I try to summarize all 3 replies in one proposal: > > ___________________________________ > > Proposal: > MPI 2.0, Sect. 4.10 Info Objects, page 43, line 38-40 read: > If a function does not recognize a key, > it will ignore it, unless otherwise specified. > If an implementation recognizes a key but does not recognize > the format of the corresponding value, the result is undefined. > but should read: > An implementation must support info objects as caches for arbitrary > (key, value) pairs, regardless of whether it recognizes the pairs. > Each MPI function which takes hints in the form of an MPI_Info must > be prepared to ignore any key it does not recognize. > > Add after MPI 2.0, Sect. 4.10 Info Objects, page 44, line 22 a new > paragraph: > Advice to implementors. > Although in MPI functions that take hints in form of an MPI_Info > (e.g., in process creation and management, one-sided communication, > or parallel file I/O), an implementation must be prepared to ignore > keys that it does not recognize, for the purpose of > MPI_INFO_GET_NKEYS, > MPI_INFO_GET_NTHKEY, MPI_INFO_GET_VALUELEN, and MPI_INFO_GET, the > implementation must retain all (key,value) pairs so that layered > functionality can also use the Info object. > (End of advice to implementors.) > _____________________________ > Rationale for this clarification: > > The MPI-2.0 text allowed that also MPI_INFO_DELETE, MPI_INFO_SET, > MPI_INFO_GET, and MPI_INFO_DUP could ignore (key,value) pairs > that are not recognized in routines in other chapters that > take hints with info arguments. > The proposed clarification is necessary when we assume, that > layered implementation of parts of the MPI-2 standard should > be possible and may use the MPI_Info objects for their needs. > This was a goal of the MPI-2 Forum and the MPI-2.0 specification. > ___________________________________ > > Bronis, for me, your wording "an MPI implementation may restrict" was > in conflict with the rest of the advice. I hope the formulation above > is also okay. It is based on the new wording from you and Dick in > first > part of the proposal. > > Best regards > Rolf > > > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner@XXXXXXX > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30) > _______________________________________________ > mpi-21 mailing list > mpi-21@XXXXXXXXXXX > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi-21 > _______________________________________________ mpi-21 mailing list mpi-21@XXXXXXXXXXX http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi-21